Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966 (Commencement of Part II Order) 1967 the Summer Time Order, 1967, Double Taxation Relief Orders, South West Africa, 1967, Luxembourg, 1967 and South Africa, 1967, be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the first debate and as we end a busy time in Parliament, I am sure that the House would wish me to express the thanks to all those who have served us—to the Clerk and his staff, the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, the Press Gallery and Official Reporters, the Refreshment Department, Post Office and Telephones, the police, the Library, those who have printed our voluminous papers, the engineers, the Works Department, and all in Mr. Speaker's own Department. We have made heavy demands on them all, and we are deeply grateful for what they have done to make this vast hive of industry function efficiently.
A number of hon. Members have indicated that they would like to speak on some of the Adjournment topics. I would point out at the beginning that each debate is timed and that I must protect the interests of those who have debates later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Further to your remarks, Mr. Speaker, may

I say how grateful we are to you for the way in which you have presided over us during these very difficult days and long nights. We are very grateful for your tolerance and patience to all Members of the House.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: May I echo the words that you have spoken, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the staff and others, and add to the tribute paid to you personally in respect of the very warm feelings which we feel for you.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): May I, on behalf of the Government, pay our tribute to everybody who works in this building, and also to you, Mr. Speaker, remembering the very strenuous time that you have had during these last few months.

SOFT DRUGS

11.7 a.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I want to add to the words of thanks expressed to you, Mr. Speaker, my personal gratitude for allowing me to raise this subject as our first Adjournment debate. I am grateful also to the Minister of State, Home Office, for being present, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who has such knowledge and expertise in this question of young people and the use of drugs.
A few weeks ago the Home Secretary said that it was sometimes a mistake to talk too much about this matter and that it was a question where action was much more important than words. I share his view. Nevertheless, there are occasions when it is impossible for us to avoid talking about these difficult problems.
All sections of the House will agree that there is now abundant evidence that in the past few years there has been a vast increase in the use of drugs of all kinds in this country, and in particular by young people. I do not know whether the Minister of State can give us some statistics about that. Our first aim should be to stop the increase in the number—which, thank God, is still quite small—of people who are becoming addicted to the hard drugs—cocaine, heroin and morphine. I do not wish to talk about this today; I wish to deal with the soft


drugs. It is often said that the use of soft drugs leads to hard drugs; and the Press widely report the Recorder of Birmingham this morning as having said this yesterday. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to comment on that.
No hon. Member has not at some time taken a soft drug, which can be something as minor as caffeine or tea, and few have not taken alcohol or nicotine at some time. These are the softest drugs, which are not socially unacceptable in this country. The next range of drugs is that of the amphetamines and barbiturates, which are all right when prescribed by doctors, but extremely dangerous if used by unauthorised people. Many people think that there are still too many prescriptions for these and too wide a medical use, but the latter is dropping, although the illegal use is still increasing.
It cannot be stressed too hard how dangerous is the use of large quantities of amphetamines and barbiturates. There was a tragic case the other day in Hertfordshire, which hon. Members may have noted. A heavy responsibility rests on the manufacturers of these drugs to make sure that their safety precautions in the factories are good—I must say that I have generally been impressed by them. Perhaps the right hon. Lady can say something about precautions in chemists' shops where thefts of these drugs so often take place.
Another set of drugs which are increasingly used by young people are the so-called hallucinogens, of which the best known is L.S.D., but there is also S.T.P. and D.M.T. The right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has given some evidence about the effects of some of these drugs on him, but I hope that there will be no prosecution of the right hon. Member. L.S.D. has been known for over 30 years I am informed by Members of the medical profession—I hope that the right hon. Lady will confirm this—that there is no doubt that this drug is most unsafe except under supervision. We will face a great problem over this drug, which is extremely difficult to detect, being odourless, colourless and taken in only minute quantities There is no case for a change in the law with regard to hallucinogens, but the law will be difficult to enforce.
Much the most difficult and controversial topic at the moment is the use of cannabis or marijuana by young people. This is where the law is most widely flouted. I would like hon. Members to ask themselves, first, why these drugs are taken. In every generation there is a wish to rebel, first of all, against the standards of the previous generation. There is something of that in the use of cannabis. Young people still have too little realisation of the dangers of all drugs. I was glad to see that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is to launch a bigger programme on that in schools.
Above all, however, there is a feeling that those who are a little older are hypocritical, particularly about cannabis. Young people consider, rightly or wrongly, that they are persecuted for a harmless pleasure, while adults freely use nicotine, which probably leads to cancer, and alcohol, and we all know tragic cases of alcoholism. Young people also feel that it is hypocritical for the State to make vast sums of money, particularly out of tobacco, and that the State's moral values are wrong. I do not defend or condone this attitude, but it is understandable.
Cannabis is the mildest form of hallucinogen, though I do not want to get involved in the details, because they are difficult for a layman. There is still far too little information about this, as about all other soft drugs. It is known as hashish, marijuana and "pot", as well as cannabis, and its use is now widespread in many parts of the world, including the United States and this country. Recent articles in Life and Newsweek show how widespread its use has become in the United States, and it is likely to spread here, I fear.
Everyone in this field agrees that cannabis is a mild intoxicant and non-addictive. The Braine Committee set up a few years also said so. It breaks down inhibitions and causes, as Dr. Stafford Clark said in his distinguished articles in The Times a few weeks ago, "talkative elation". It is possible to create an emotional dependence on cannabis, but there is no physical dependence. However, divergent views are strongly held about this drug.
A most important argument, which a very distinguished doctor told me yesterday is that there is no doubt that there is escalation from cannabis to heroin. The Recorder of Birmingham said yesterday:
In the City of Birmingham, of the 70 registered addicts, 69 started by using cannabis or marijuana.
The question which the House ought to ask is, is this cause and effect? Those who take a different view from the Recorder will point out that, although a large proportion of heroin addicts have taken cannabis in their lives, an equally large number have taken alcohol and caffeine and a great many other things. The question which should concern us is whether there is any cause and effect here.
Those who believe that cannabis is dangerous consider that there is a progression. There is also some mixed evidence abroad of some cases of insanity after prolonged cannabis smoking, but this has also been caused by alcoholic conditions. Some say that, if society let up on the smoking of cannabis, this would destroy the barrier in young people's minds between taking a drug and not—that the step from cannabis to something worse would be morally much less great if the use of cannabis was made legal.
On the other hand, those who take a different view claim that there is no physical harm in the use of cannabis, especially when our society allows the use of alcohol and tobacco, and that putting cannabis in the same category for punishment—as it is at the moment—as the hard drugs like heroin leads young people who take the drug into the environment of the "pushers" and those who take hard drugs, which is likely to inflate the problem and to put more young people at risk than otherwise.
They will also argue that, as a result of the law at the moment, the drug squad and those interested in this matter are diverted from their real task of catching the more dangerous drugs by having to give so much attention to the problem of cannabis. I ask the Minister of State, if she is in a position to say—I dare say that she is not in a position to do so today—what evidence there is of cause and effect and whether cannabis leads on

to heroin, because that seems to me to be the crucial point. I am not in a position to express a view of the matter. All I would say is that there are known to be about 1,400 heroin addicts in this country —perhaps the Minister of State will confirm that—and no doubt ther are a large number of illegal heroin addicts, too. That is still a small number, but I fear that hon. Members and people outside have yet to realise just how widespread the use of marijuana is becoming.
I have to telescope my arguments, because I do not want to take up too much time, but if we are to avoid an even worse social problem than that which exists today, it is essential for there to be far more research into the subject. This is not a situation for which the Government are entirely to blame, but a criticism which I level against them is that they have allowed the problem to grow until we are at a dangerous state, while the basic research still has not been evaluated and the Home Office and the Ministry of Health have allowed the situation to drift.
We also need far more money spent and far more research conducted on education and on teaching young people about the dangers of drugs and, in particular, the dangers of drug addiction. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what her right hon. Friend intends to do about it in the schools.
The argument has come to a head in recent months because there is no doubt that the number of young people smoking cannabis has increased. It was also brought to a head by an advertisement in The Times this week in which it was alleged by many distinguished people, including medical people, that the law against cannabis at the moment is "immoral in principle and unworkable in practice."
With the latter half of that statement I am beginning to agree. I think that the law is becoming increasingly unworkable in practice. I do not know whether the House realises how many respectable young people indulge in the practice. I am not talking about the lower strata, the people who are so distressed that they have no other form of relief than marijuana. I fear that there are large numbers of respectable people with good jobs, or students, who are taking the drugs, and they represent an intelligent section


of our society. For them, repression is not enough. They must be convinced as well as repressed, if repression is the right step.
I propose to ask the Minister some questions, about most of which I have given notice. I understand that a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence is studying the whole question of soft drugs. May I hope that that sub-committee will deal with cannabis? Can the Minister of State tell me when that sub-committee is likely to report? Has she considered the point which I put to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some time ago: although this is a very distinguished sub-committee and although I would respect its judgment, does she think that young people will respect its judgment? Or would it not be better to have a few more young people on the sub-committee?
What is essential as a result of this sub-committee's findings, whatever they may be, is that young people should be convinced of the truth of the findings and the honesty of its approach to the matter. I also urge that this inquiry should be public. There is no reason whatever why the inquiry should be carried out in secret, unless some person wishes to give evidence to the sub-committee in secret, when the sub-committee could exercise its discretion. But the whole point about the sub-committee is that the public have to be convinced one way or the other about the danger or lack of danger in cannabis. I hope that the Minister of State will ensure the widest publicity for its findings.
I want to make it clear that I do not come here today to ask for cannabis to be legalised. What I want is that the evidence should be obtained on which a balanced judgment can be formed, and then we shall know where the truth lies, because people must be convinced at the end of the day one way or the other. I hope that this is a meaningful research project—I think it is—and that at the end of the day people will be able to decide one way or the other.
May I put a point for consideration by the Government: do they consider it essential for marijuana to be on the same list under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965 as the more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and the hard drugs? At the moment it is possible to receive a sentence

of ten years' imprisonment for being in possession of cannabis. It is precisely the same sentence as that for heroin, and yet I cannot believe that any hon. Member does not draw a big distinction between those two categories. I think that I am right in saying that the penalties for possessing cannabis are more severe than those for possessing L.S.D. If that is so, perhaps the Minister will tell us. It is hard to believe that it can be right. I have also been informed—I admit that my information is second hand, and I ask the Minister to check it—that there have been several cases—I can think of two—in which, for the first offence of being in possession of the drug, people have been sentenced to imprisonment of up to a year. Does the House think that wise?
I want to see the problem solved, because I am certain that young people will go on using the drug unless they can be convinced intellectually that it has the dangers which it is widely believed to possess. I am told that we have the mildest kind of marijuana in Britain and that there is a grave danger in the future that we shall have adulterated marijuana, maybe mixed with heroin or opium, if this situation is allowed to slide much longer.
I very much doubt whether the law is the best way to control human behaviour of this kind. I believe that it must be inquired into, and I would see some advantages if it were possible to control the drug as alcohol is controlled—with far stricter control of those under 18 who take the drug. There will have to be far stricter control for example, of people who drive cars while under the influence of this drug.
What alarms me about this, as with so many social problems, is that it has been creeping up upon us for some time, almost unnoticed, until suddenly it has begun to snowball. The problem has reached a crucial point. Many people talk about the generation gap. That has always existed. Nevertheless, there is something in that argument today. I am sure that the gap between the generations is greater than it was ten years ago, because I find that so many young people suspect our generation of hyprocrisy.
Apathy is the worst solution to the problem. I urge the Minister of State


to press ahead with the inquiry to convince the public one way or the other of the truth about the drug and to make funds available for widespread research. We are at the turning of the ways on this issue. I want to play it down rather than to play it up, and I do not think that a debate of this kind is necessarily any good, but debates of this kind must take place. I recognise that the Government have great international difficulties in the matter and that we have signed conventions, but it is no longer good enough to let the problem drift. We require urgent public action, and action which will convince young people. Only if we do all these things shall we avoid a social problem which will become far worse than it is today.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I shall speak only briefly, in order to allow time to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer the debate, and to any other hon. Member who may wish to speak. The debate will have been of great use if it leads to the further research and action, which the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) suggested, and I congratulate him on having raised this hotly topical subject.
He referred to the advertisement in The Times of last Monday. I was one of the only two Members of this House who signed it, and I would not have done so if I had not been in general agreement with what was said—not necessarily with every word—and if I had not wanted to check the use of what the hon. Member has called hard drugs, such as heroin, which can do immense damage, physical and mental.
The real point, as he said, is this alleged escalation. Does the use of cannabis lead on to the use of heroin? My conversations with doctors who have specialised in treating addicts leads me to a somewhat contrary view to that expressed by the doctor to whom the hon. Member spoke. The most expert doctor with whom I have discussed this subject gave me the opinion that only 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the hard drug addicts who came for treatment for heroin addiction had started on cannabis. There is also a clear logical defect in the escalation argument, which the hon. Member

pointed out very well and which, therefore, I need not labour.
One other point that may be made about this escalation—which may even seem to some to justify that charge—is that the same underground pushers, the commercial pushers, of these drugs sell both the soft one, cannabis, and the harder, addictive drug, heroin. They are naturally anxious to get their victims on to the harder drug, which is more profitable to them. These are the people whom I hope the Home Department will be able to drive out of business. So long as there is no difference in status between cannabis and heroin, it will be that much more difficult to prevent them from leading people to the harder drugs when they have got used to the relatively non-addictive marijuana.
There have been criticisms of the advertisement in The Times, but I do not think that people such as Dr. Stafford-Clark, Dr. Anthony Storr, and other doctors and scientists, including two Nobel prizewinners would have signed if this had been a completely irresponsible thing to do.
It is very easy to blame drugs for outbreaks of violence, or various other evils in society, the real root causes of which have not been sufficiently analysed or determined. As long ago as the 1890s, there was an official investigation in India, known as the Hemp Drugs Commission. One of the witnesses happened to be my own father, who was a senior official there at the time. He pointed out that when violently insane people were sent to the police, the police had to fill in a form giving the cause of their condition. He said:
The cause is a point they have to inquire into.…The policeman must, therefore, look out for a cause. The readiest is ganja—
which is another form of the same drug.
The safest thing to say is 'ganja'. The police know that no further enquiry will be made, so they stick it down.
Having heard a great deal of evidence of all kinds the Commission came to the conclusion that these drugs, which include the one that we are talking about, were practically harmless. In regard to the physical effects the Report said:
The Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all.—There is probably nothing the use


of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance…the moderate use of hemp drugs appears to cause no appreciable physical injury of any kind…it produces no injurious effects on the mind…it produces no moral injury whatever.
The Report goes on to reiterate what seemed to the Commission a proven fact. But there is much more recent evidence than that—given in that advertisement in The Times of last Monday. Attempts have been made to suggest that the use of the quotations in the advertisement was unduly selective, but it would have been impossible to publish everything said about the drugs; and there is one particularly telling extract from Doctor J. H. Jaffe, whose Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (third edition, 1965) is a textbook respected by all medical opinion. He says:
There are no lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marijuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded.…The causal relationship between marijuana smoking and heroin addiction has never been substantiated.
That is all that I have to say. I am grateful to have had the time in which to say it.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has served a very useful purpose in raising this difficult and topical subject today. I find myself in a large measure of agreement with the aims of this Committee, about which the general public do not know very much should be given some advertisement. It is called the Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, and the Home Department has announced that it is currently studying the pharmacological, legal and social aspects of problems associated with soft drugs. As the hon. Member has asked, does that include cannabis?
We should also like to know when this Committee started to discuss the problem of cannabis, how often it meets and when it is likely to report. Who is sitting on it? Whose opinions are we to be asked to accept on this? It is a vitally important thing that whatever this Committee reports should be accepted by the general public, particularly by the younger generation. It is no use using Victorian language hoping to convince the younger generation. Legally marijuana is now classified as a narcotic along with heroin and morphine.
This is where we want some of the hard scientific information. We want to know whether scientific evidence supports that classification. Some experts say that marijuana does not result in physical addiction. I remember being asked to see one of my constituents, a young woman imprisoned in Holloway for her first offence in connection with marijuana. She was most insistent that she was not an addict and saw nothing wrong in indulging in this practice. She seemed to be quite a normal person, and I believe that quite a number of marijuana smokers are fairly normal and that this cannot be regarded as a seriously corrupting influence on the general public. When deprived of marijuana, they do not suffer the intense craving of the morphine or the heroin addict, nor do they have to step up the dose in order to reach the earlier effect.
We look forward this morning to the fullest possible statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and some reassurance on the arguable proposition that marijuana is not as harmful as some people say. That aspect should be investigated with the utmost dispatch, and a really convincing report issued as soon as possible.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for raising this subject, thus giving the right hon. Lady the Minister of State the opportunity to make a statement on some of the matters he raised. At this stage, I do not wish to add anything very positive to the subject: the longer I apply myself to it, the less assertive I find I become.
My hon. Friend made some remarks about the amphetamines. I personally remain of the view that the misuse of the amphetamines, among the young in particular, is still a very serious and certainly not a diminishing problem. How else can it be when we know that last year in London 665,000 amphetamine tablets were stolen, 880 prescription forms were forged and 500 blank prescription forms were stolen? That gives some indication of the nature of the problem.
I am glad that both the Home Office and the British Medical Association are conducting inquiries into this subject, and I only hope that those inquiries will be


deep enough to examine the social and medical reasons for our staggering need of barbiturates and amphetamines. About 6 million prescriptions were issued for barbiturates in the last six months, and 3 million prescriptions for amphetamines.
My hon. Friend dwelt largely on the growing controversy about and increasing use of marijuana. The right hon. Lady knows that a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence is doing urgent work, on which, of course, I must make no comment. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that it is important that we should not only find the right answer, but that in presenting the answer we should carry conviction with young people.
Speaking generally on the subject, I share my hon. Friend's regret that we have delayed for, I think, too long the intensive research which is now beginning. We have been very slow, and although we are not the only country to have been slow it is, in a sense, to be deplored. My hon. Friends says that far too little is known about marijuana, but we certainly do not lack material. The literature on this drug is massive, running into thousands of articles in medical and technical journals. What we lack is analysis of the material and of experience here and in other countries. It is urgent to fill in these gaps in our knowledge of the nature of the drug's use—occasional, periodic and habitual—and, in particular, its relationship to aggressive behaviour and crime. We need to know more about its relationship to other drugs and, I must add, the extent to which it is in all countries, to some extent, an immigrant problem, because that is undoubtedly part of the true. But I must warn my hon. Friend that we may not find a final solution or, at least, an acceptable final solution.
This is a much more complex problem than some of the more facile advocates suggest. As an example, the cannabis plant provides flower tops or leaves which provide marijuana as we know it. These may vary in potency according to the climate in which they grow. The plant also provides a resin, which is hashish. There are 7 million Egyptians addicted to hashish, and the Egyptian Government are at their wits' end to know what to do about it.
Does anyone believe that if we were to end the black market in cannabis leaf by legalising it a black market in the resin would not begin? That could undermine the nation. That is why I believe that those who sign public announcements assume very grave responsibilities unless they can back what they do with more knowledge than most of us think we have. At this stage, the Government would be totally irresponsible, they would be mad, to release this drug from strict control. Even if they themselves wished to do so, of course, they could not do it at present because of international obligations.
The penalties under the Act want watching. The law is right, but the courts lack experience in implementing it. I hope that the right hon. Lady will refer to that side of the problem. The courts could be helped by more guidance. I join my hon. Friend in his quest for knowlede and wait with interest to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say.

11.46 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): We have had several debates in the last few months on drugs, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) is right in saying that the more we talk about them the more we realise how much we do not know. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) laid stress on the use of drugs by young people, and it is important to do this because the evidence is that they are the core of the problem. The menace to them is real, not theoretical.
The young experimenter with drugs may very quickly became a casualty. Last year, a heroin addict came to notice aged only 14, and 111 others were less than 18 years of age. Many young people who have been admitted recently to remand homes, approved schools, Borstals and detention centres have a history of drug taking. The proportion is about 1 in 5, and it seems to be rising. The right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps the Government were slow in taking action, but as he and I think everyone else know this problem has hit us later than it has other countries.
The debate has been principally about the soft drugs, and particularly about cannabis. The Government share the


general concern about the misuse of pep pills, L.S.D. and cannabis, and have already taken certain steps. The drug L.S.D. was brought under the control of the 1964 Act last year, and we have made urgent inquiries of the United States authorities about S.T.P., which drug has not yet been placed under control in America.
Preliminary information suggests that the chemical structure of S.T.P. detected by the American authorities does not automatically bring it within the scope of the 1964 Act. The Government Chemist is at present urgently examining a single tablet of this drug which was sent to the Home Office last week. When we have his report, we shall give urgent consideration to the need to bring S.T.P. under control.
In another place, provisions have been added to the Dangerous Drugs Bill to strengthen the Home Secretary's powers to impose requirements for the safe custody of soft as well as of hard drugs.
Prosecutions under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act were 1,003 in 1965 and 1,216 in 1966. There were 721 prosecutions in the first four months of 1967, which makes it seem likely that there will be a very great increase in prosecutions under this Act in 1967 as a whole. The number of convictions for offences connected with cannabis were 554 in 1964, and in 1966 the number had gone up to 1,119. In the first four months of 1967 there were 530 convictions which, again, shows that the figures for 1967 as a whole are likely to be much higher than those for 1966.
The Government recognise that there is controversy about the dangers of cannabis. This drug was scheduled under the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, to which the Government are a party. Strict control is applied to the drug by our Dangerous Drugs Act, which reflects the requirements of the Convention. Most of those requirements have been part of the dangerous drugs law here since the drug was placed under international control in 1928. The law allows for medical and scientific use, but there is virtually no such use for the drug in this country at present.
The law was strengthened in 1964 when it was made an offence to permit premises to be used for smoking cannabis

and an offence intentionally to cultivate the cannabis plant. Cannabis smoking in this country became extensive only recently. It seems to have spread throughout Western Europe. Opinion seems to be divided about its dangers. This may be because its potency varies with the area in which it is produced and the personality of the user. Our law puts the drug under the same restrictions as heroin because it is treated like this in the International Convention.
It has been asked this morning, is it right to retain the present restrictions? The World Health Organisation, the Permanent Central Narcotics Board and the United Nations Narcotics Commission all consider this drug harmful to society and that international control should be maintained. Since it is now banned in almost every country it could not be freed without international consequences. We have also to realise that the potency of cannabis varies, but is it likely that young people who find it a pleasurable drug will discriminate between the less and the more potent? If they start on the less harmful, will there not be a demand for the "hard stuff" and traffic in it?
I have been asked this morning about the Committee which is sitting. The Home Secretary and the Minister of Health set up the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, of which the right hon. Member for Ashford is a member. That Committee has set up a sub-committee on L.S.D. and cannabis. I have been asked if the sub-committee could sit in public. It would be entirely inappropriate for a committee of this kind to sit in public and to hear evidence in public. Apart from all other things, I think the meetings of the committee, particularly in regard to the evidence, would be used as a theatrical performance by some people who were required to give evidence. I assure the hon. Member for Southend, West, that on the committee a wide body of opinion is represented. One of the members of the Committee signed the advertisement which appeared in The Times.

Mr. Driberg: Hear, hear.

Miss Bacon: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear." I make no comment on that, but mention it in passing to show that there is a wide body of opinion.

Mr. Lipton: Mr. Lipton rose—

Miss Bacon: I have only a few minutes and cannot give way.
Views have been given this morning about cannabis. It would be entirely mad for the Government to relax the laws without more information. We want more information to be obtained by the committee. It has been said in this morning's newspapers that in Birmingham a great many people who take heroin started with cannabis. Ninety-seven per cent. of the heroin addicts known to the Home Office have a previous history of cannabis taking.

Mr. Driberg: And of alcohol.

Miss Bacon: The Government would be mad, quite apart from the International Conventions of which we are a part, to relax these restrictions.
The Government are aware of the need for research and a new research unit has been established by the Minister of Health. An extensive inquiry is being arranged into the extent of drug addiction and abuse among those sent to prisons, borstals and remand centres. Other research projects are also in hand. The Advisory Committee on Drugs has already begun discussing with the Medical Research Council what is needed over the whole field.
I believe that at present we are in danger in this country—I am not speaking only of cannabis but also of some other drugs which have been mentioned, particularly L.S.D.—of some people misleading young people by not only taking drugs themselves, but trying to influence the minds of young people and trying to encourage them to take drugs. I do not often read the magazine the Queen, but I was at the hairdresser's yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This magazine was passed to me to while away the time when I was under the hair drier. There is a very long article in it called "The Love Generation" with statements by various people who are pop singers and managers of pop groups. I was horrified at some of the things I read in it. For instance, Paul McCartney says among other things:
God is in everything. God is in the space between us. God is in that table in front of you. God is everything and everywhere and everyone.

It just happens that I realised all this through acid (L.S.D.), but it could have been through anything. It really does not matter how I made it.…The final result is all that counts.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Lady quoting prominent people in favour of drug taking? It is terribly dangerous to quote people like that when we are against drug taking.

Mr. Driberg: He is a very good man.

Miss Bacon: I am illustrating the argument. The hon. Member raised this question this morning and, running through his speech, I thought I detected a sort of feeling that we should relax on cannabis. Maybe I am wrong, but if he does not want any publicity to be given at all, this debate should not have taken place this morning.
The manager of the Beatles said in this article that there is a new mood in the country and:
This new mood has originated from hallucinatory drugs and I am wholeheartedly on its side.
The only person with any sense at all quoted in the article seems to be a little pop singer called Lulu, who said:
People talk about this love—love—love thing as if you had to be on drugs before you can be part of it. In fact, love is far older than pot and goes right back to Jesus. I'm a believer.
This may sound amusing to hon. Members, but young people take quite seriously what pop stars say. What sort of society will we create if everyone wants to escape from reality?

Mr. Driberg: They want to escape from this horrible society we have created.

Miss Bacon: Today there are those who see in society's attitude to drug-taking the opportunity for questioning traditional values and social judgments of all kinds and for advocating aims and conduct going far beyond the "kicks" and pleasures of a few pills. For them drug-taking is a way—the way—of life to which they beckon the impressionable, the curious, the frustrated, and the demoralised. Insidiously or openly, wittingly or unwittingly, the young are being taught the paraphernalia of psychedelic experience, and the catch phrases of drug cults.
This seems to be the real challenge of soft drugs, and it is growing. The Government believe that it is time for responsible influences to check this trend. It is time to make clear that teenage drug-taking is ill-advised if not dangerous to personality and health. It is time to rebut the claim of those who profess to make mystics out of the immature. This is a challenge which all sections of society must take up. The Government are resolved to do their part.

DRIVING TESTS

12 noon.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I share a great deal of anxiety expressed by hon. Members in the debate which has just taken place on the subject of drugs, because, I, too, am a member of the Committee to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Home Office referred. I, too, am pleased to know that a great deal of new action is being taken on research, as I have also been a member of the Medical Research Council, which is concerned with this aspect of the matter. I am very pleased that these further steps are being taken. I share the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the more one learns on this subject the more doubts one is bound to have and the more anxiety one has to secure really effective information which can be passed on with authority to a much greater number of people. I share everyone's hope that during the early period ahead we shall he able to get the more definitive information which everyone agrees is urgently necessary.
I turn now to the subject which I seek to raise, which may seem to many to be much less important. I make no bones about it: it is, indeed, a much less urgent and much less important matter, but one which nevertheless I believe is an example in some respects of rigidity in administrative practices of what I might call minor bumbledom and which I should like to see the Government help to remove. I therefore use a constituency case as an example to suggest that there are still fields where the Government should attempt to look again at administrative practices to see whether greater flexibility can be achieved.
I am referring to the way in which driving tests are organised and the apparent difficulty of being able to get a bit of flexibility into these arrangements. This rigidity may be extremely annoying to those who are prevented for perfectly understandable reasons from taking tests at the time that they are arranged.
I will explain the case I have particularly in mind and which has given rise to this debate. In my constituency of South Shields a driving instructor booked a driving test for a constituent of mine —a nurse—for Monday, 8th May, at 9.45 a.m. On Wednesday, 3rd May, still a few days before the test was due, the instructor rang up the Northern Traffic Area Office to explain that my constituent, Miss Smith, was required to take a medical clinic on the morning of 8th May. He therefore asked whether the test could be changed, if possible even to the afternoon of the same day. The area office said that this could not be done, that under the regulations three clear days' notice had to be given and that that notice excluded Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, holy days and no doubt all sorts of other days—perhaps also when the moon is in a particular phase. However, it was not possible to make the alteration, although some notice had been given.
Later the instructor found that he had on his books another constituent of mine who was booked for the Monday afternoon—not the morning—and who was perfectly willing to change over with Miss Smith. It would have been a perfectly satisfactory arrangement for both of them. They would merely have switched, one from the afternoon to the morning, and the other from the morning to the afternoon. Nothing would seem to be simpler or more obvious. So the instructor again rang up to suggest that perhaps this exchange could be arranged and the test need not be cancelled. Again, the instructor came up against the regulation —the portentous regulation—which is carefully made from the Ministry in London to the effect that even exchanges cannot be arranged in this way unless at least three clear days' notice have been given.
At that point the matter was raised with me. I thought that I need do no more than write to the Northern Traffic Area Office and the matter would be cleared


up. It seemed that such a small issue as this could easily be dealt with. I was rather astonished to learn that the matter was referred to the Ministry. I received a lengthy, very courteous, letter, from my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport explaining a great deal of interesting detail about the working of driving test arrangements, but not giving me the answer I had hoped to receive. Indeed, in some respects my hon. Friend made matters worse. He gave me to understand in his first letter that, in the case of exchanges of tests between two persons about to be tested, not three days' but a fortnight's notice had to be given. I learned subsequently that this was not so.
I followed the matter up and received another very courteous, interesting and lengthy letter from my hon. Friend going into all the problems that face the Ministry and its regional offices in arranging driving tests. I understand the problem. There are enormous numbers of applicants for driving tests. The arrangements are now carried out far better than they were some time ago. The causes of many complaints have been overcome. My hon. Friend made it clear that quite a number of people who apply for tests continually want to change the dates. I can understand that. Butterflies in the stomach could well impose many unnecessary demands upon his staff for alterations. I understand that the Ministry must protect itself against that sort of thing.
However, that does not begin to answer the point I have been trying to raise with my hon. Friend. If two persons are taking a test on the same instructor's books and they simply want to switch for sound and good reasons, why on earth should not they be allowed to do so, even with less than three clear days' notice, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and feast days? Why cannot the Northern Traffic Area Office have the minor amount of discretion to enable it to say that such a case is obvious and that a change could be made?
Instead of that, my constituent was told that she could not exchange, but that she had to cancel her appointment and make a new one and pay a new fee. I do not know what happened in the Northern Traffic Area Office, but

presumably it had to get someone else to come in and take the time which had been allotted to my constituent on the Monday morning. Why could it not have agreed to the exchange suggested by the instructor? This is the point that I find completely incomprehensible. With all respect to my hon. Friend, I feel that he has not answered that point.
I regret that I have had to waste the time of the House, in a sense, in raising a matter of this sort. As I say, I had hoped that a polite note to the local office would have been sufficient. I then hoped in my innocence and naiveté that a note to my hon. Friend would have been sufficient, or even a second one. I regret that I had to go through the further process of a Question in the House and now this Adjournment debate.
I find that the case that I am raising is not the only one which has arisen. I have had other letters of a comparable character since I raised this matter. Similar cases have been mentioned to me, although they have not perhaps quite the same validity as the one which I am raising today. There is, for example, the case of a sea captain whose ship is moved and he has to go with it and, therefore, has to cancel his driving test appointment. Should he really be required to pay the fee and re-book? I am not sure. Certainly whatever the rights and wrongs in this category of case, for goodness sake let us have a bit of local flexibility in the arrangements so that one may telephone to the local office and have suitable alterations made in a case like this where it must be clear and obvious that because of the work that the person is doing he cannot do other than alter the arrangement which was originally made. It should be possible for him to have the facility to make the kind of exchange which in this case was so patently obvious.
I hope my hon. Friend will now say that he will look at the matter again and see whether he can give his local officers that bit of flexibility that would have prevented this matter from being raised at all.

12.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): My hon. Friend the Member


for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has raised a subject today which is of understandable concern to a great and increasing number of people. I do not think there is any need for him to regret that he has been wasting the time of the House. He has certainly not done that, because it is always right that when a Department says that it cannot do something which a citizen would find helpful, the Department's view should be open to challenge and scrutiny. The Department could be wrong, in which case reexamination could lead to a useful change in practice; or it could be right, in which case the challenge can give a valuable opportunity for the Department to explain fully just what the difficulties are. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and, indeed, if I may compliment him, he has been extraordinarily diligent in pursuing his constituent's interest not only because of its particular application in the case which he has raised but because of his general concern about the need for flexibility in this matter.
I come to the basic complaint of my hon. Friend. Based on a particular case which occurred, what he is saying in effect is that someone books a driving test for a particular day and time, then that person finds for very good reasons that the appointment is inconvenient and, therefore, may need to be changed. If there is someone else with an appointment who would be prepared to change with him, why cannot this be done? On the face of it, the request is fair enough. Since there is an exchange of tests, no examiner's time is lost. Two people get their tests at times which suit them. It all looks very sensible. Yet we say that we cannot have this. So my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to an explanation.
The first point that I must make is that there is flexibility—I think that he himself has said so in terms—in that we do allow exchange of tests, or any other re-appointment which we can fit in, provided the applicant either gives us three days' clear notice or he pays a second fee. We allow the first because we are, I hope, sensible enough to recognise that people cannot always see too far ahead how they are going to be placed, and so may well have to change their plans, as my hon. Friend's constituent

wanted to do. If we have three days' notice we can in practice take the change in our stride without adding much to the weight of the administrative job. We allow the second because in paying a further £1 fee the applicant fully meets the cost of giving him the re-arrangement that he wants. Since he has to pay, he is unlikely to make a change unless he genuinely feels that he has to.
This last point is really important because we have found from experience that, without a payment penalty, a growing number of candidates were either just failing to turn up or were cancelling at such short notice that the test period allotted to them was wholly wasted. In fact, the figure got to 10 per cent. of the total tests, and this was such an alarming waste, not all of it in our view by any means inevitable, that we felt we had to do something if only in fairness to those who stuck to their appointments when they had made them.
So any further change of our present rule would have to be to allow some free change at less than three days' notice. Such a change is bound to add to the work of the organisation. The examiner taking the test has to know in advance whom he is to expect, and certain papers have to be with him. If we do not do this, there can be muddle over the issue of pass or failure certificates, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that if any such error is made we shall be faced not with one Parliamentary Question or one Adjournment debate but a whole series of them, and quite rightly, too. Secondly, there can be risks of prejudice against a candidate who has already failed a test with that examiner, and so on.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate these difficulties, but surely my hon. Friend will not suggest that the kind of exchange to which I am referring should cause any administrative problem whatsoever? It was a mere transfer of papers.

Mr. Morris: If one were dealing in isolation with just the case of my hon. Friend, I can quite see that any Department could take that one case in its stride. But we are dealing with 2¼ million applications a year. I am sure my hon. Friend was listening intently when I said


earlier that the rise in cancellations had reached 10 per cent.
Having stood at this Box to answer Questions from time to time, I know of the great concern which exists among the public when there is a substantial delay in taking tests. When the time increases from six to seven to eight to 12 weeks before one can take a test, it is a matter of concern to all those who are waiting in the queue that no time should be wasted by a whole series of cancellations. One can deal with one case such as was mentioned by my hon. Friend, when I understand a telephone call was made to the local office on a Friday afternoon with a request for an exchange to be made with a test which had been booked on a Monday morning. Possibly one could deal with that one case. But the whole issue was canvassed. The regulations were made in accordance with the Act, and one does not legislate for one case. One has to look at the whole broad picture of 2¼ million applications in a year, and I repeat that cancellations had risen to 10 per cent.
While I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend, I am sure that he will sympathise with me in having to look at the whole broad picture of what is likely to happen in the country as a whole. As I have said, the examiner has to have certain papers and he has to make preparations. The papers help us to prevent or detect impersonation. There have been such cases in the past, and we must guard carefully against them if the test is to serve its purpose.
I do not for a moment suggest that this reallocating of candidates' papers, at short notice, would add up to much extra work in any one case on its own. But, if we changed our rule so as to allow this free and late exchange of tests, it would be not one case we should face but many many more. For the fact is that the sheer volume of driving tests is now very high and shows no sign of falling. Applications for tests now come in at the rate of over 2¼ million a year, or about 9,000 a day. This is double the level of applications ten years ago and, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, it is a formidable total. Inevitably we have to use a large staff—well over 200—to cope with the work. They

are part of what some unknowledgeable critics call "the horde of civil servants" whose numbers they want cut.
It is right that those who have to pay, directly or indirectly, for services provided by the Government should not have to pay more than is strictly necessary, and to this end we try to run the driving test organisation as efficiently, but as economically, too, as we can. If we add extra work, it is bound to mean not only extra bodies to cope with it but also that they will have to be paid for; and that in the end must mean higher charges for the service. If we allow the exchange of tests for which my hon. Friend asks, this is the road on which we set out—a more agreeable arrangement, perhaps, for that minority who at short notice cannot keep their tests. I sympathise with them, but there must be extra work involved, on a scale which in national total is bound to be significant.
There are bound to be second order effects, too. Exchange of tests would be asked for in circumstances not quite as simple, perhaps, as the case which concerns my hon. Friend. The mere fact of changing an arrangement once made would increase the risk of confusion and mistake, and time would have to be spent trying to check that this did not happen or that, when it did, things were sorted out and put right. Some people may not like not being able to switch tests quickly and freely, but many more would not like muddle and mistakes such as tend to arise from late-notice changes in the test programmes.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the explanation which I have given of our position shows that we are being reasonable. Even if we cannot meet him on the arrangement he would like to see, I hope that he is clear that we are not by any means inflexible in our approach and that we have always tried to meet people's difficulties as far as we can. First, as I have said already, we accept without question or penalty any request for a change when we have three clear days' notice. We do all we can to fit these people in as soon as possible, or as convenient to them, when they have to postpone or if they specially want an earlier test. Our regional offices go to some lengths to try to meet people's wishes in this respect. We do not just allow a gap


to occur in an examiner's programme if there is a late cancellation of which we are told. We go out of our way to use this chance to fit in someone who is in a hurry to take a test. We try very hard to help people. I am given to understand that people may indicate, when they apply for a test, whether they would like to be considered for an arrangement of this kind.
Going on from that, we have an arrangement which involves exchanges of tests. We have an understanding with the driving schools that they can ask us to rearrange tests of their pupils on an exchange basis. This makes it possible to postpone the test of a candidate whom the school knows not to be ready yet for the test and to bring forward the test of someone whom the school thinks to be up to standard. Of course—to avoid misunderstanding I must stress this—if this involves a change at less than three days' notice for either candidate, we have to ask for the extra £1 fee. This is because the same consequences arise of extra work out of the ordinary processes when we make a late change, whether it is asked for by a school or otherwise.
It is a valuable arrangement, because it makes it possible to prevent the waste of time, for all concerned, of testing someone who is far from ready and who is almost certain, therefore, to fail. The failure rate is much higher than we should like to see it from the point of view of economical running of the test. After all, a test failed is pretty close to a test wasted. Over half the tests we do result in failures, and the proportion is rising. We are sure that many failures arise from premature undergoing of the test by people who have not yet had enough tuition and experience. But we accept that it is not easy to foresee how quickly people will learn, and that it is frustrating if those who are ready to take their test and to pass it have to wait, and have to go on putting up with the disadvantages and limitations which attach to being a learner-driver. So we set some store by this special arrangement we have with the schools.
When the great pressure of demand for tests meant that we had quite a long waiting list, it was a particularly worthwhile process, because, without it, some one who felt unready for his test faced the possibility of having to go quite a

long way back down the queue if he wanted to postpone. We could not always fit him in with just a fairly short postponement. Now, I am glad to say, we have been able to get well on top of the demand for tests, so that the queue is much shorter—in fact, little more, in effect, than the result of the advance notice which candidates want to have and to give us. In these circumstances, the schools' facility of asking us to exchange tests is less valuable than it has been in the past, but it is still useful from time to time, it helps all concerned, and I am glad that we can offer the arrangement.
My answer to my hon. Friend, therefore, is this. As I said at the outset, I am exceedingly glad that he has pursued this matter, which is of real concern to him, to the length he has, but, having looked very thoroughly into it, I have to say that we already go a long way to meet the real needs of people who have to ask for a change in their test appointments, and we cannot go further. In saying this, I ask my hon. Friend to accept—I am sure that he will—that I have looked into the matter most carefully. We could not go further except by taking on extra work, which it would not be right to do if we are to run the test not only efficiently but with proper and reasonable economy in terms of both manpower and money.
There is the flexibility for which my hon. Friend asks. We are not, perhaps, as flexible as he would wish, but I do not want him to go away with any impression that there is official bumbledom in these matters. We have learned over backwards in order to help the long list of candidates by the arrangement with the driving schools, which has in the past proved most valuable, and by the arrangements whereby people giving three days' notice may make the change which they require.
I much appreciate the interest which my hon Friend has taken in the particular case of his constituent and in the general question—he knows that I have had the pleasure of congratulating his constituent on passing the test subsequently—but on the general aspect of the matter I have to refuse his request because of the consequences right across the board.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I fully understand the steps which have been taken by the Ministry, but could not the Department give just a little further flexibility to the local offices so that, where there was a clear case of this sort, they could accept a change? Second, in this case is it not true that by refusing the possibility put to it, the office did, in fact, inflict on itself a great deal more office work?

Mr. Morris: On the second point, I assure my hon. Friend that that was so, because the matter has taken up a great deal of my time in replying to correspondence, in replying to Questions, and in replying to this debate. Because of the concern which my hon. Friend feels on this issue I do not regret this in any way.
On the other issue, of further and greater flexibility, which my hon. Friend wishes, the three-day period is laid down, as I understand it, by regulations, and the regulations have been made under the Act, and if it were practical, if it were thought necessary, it would certainly need a change in those regulations. This is the period laid down: three days' notice must be given.
That is not the end of the matter, because we try to work on the basis that this service should pay for itself. There is this arrangement whereby a person, if he wishes, and if it is possible and convenient, can get out even of the three-day period by paying an extra fee, and this is the flexibility which my hon. Friend wishes. Because of the penalty by way of the need to pay the extra fee, we know that persons will look very seriously into the matter to see whether they have to change their tests, because they would have to incur this extra pecuniary liability. So I hope my hon. Friend will acquit us of being totally inflexible. We are as flexible as possible, but we have to look, not as he is looking at it, only from the standpoint of the individual case, but at the effect right across the board.

KENYA (BRITISH FARMERS)

12.31 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I think the House must recognise that this is not an easy debate, first because it deals with a complicated and technical subject dealing with two major land resettlement schemes in Kenya, and also the question of the agricultural settlement trust and the compassionate cases scheme; and secondly, I am sorry to say, because it deals with the recent deportations.
The House must realise that such a debate could have unfavourable repercussions in Kenya. Therefore, I assure the House that I gave very careful consideration as to whether or not this matter should be raised in the House today. I came to the conclusion that the case for the British farmers in Kenya tends to be blurred by both the British and the Kenyan Governments, and that in fairness this case should be told in the House, as I believe that race relations in Kenya can only be enhanced by knowledge on both sides of the story.
The House recognises that President Kenyatta has done his best to control the forces acting against the white and indeed the brown minorities in Kenya, and we recognise that it is thanks to President Kenyatta that race relations in Kenya today are so good. That, of course, is why the deportations came as such a shock, because this is the first time that the farmers and permanent residents have been deported from Kenya. Other than the question of the deportations, my task will not be in anyway to criticise the Kenya Government but to press the farmers' case, and, indeed, the Kenya Government's case against Her Majesty's Government here.
Let me deal first with the land resettlement scheme which became known as the 1 million acre scheme. This was announced in Nairobi in November, 1961, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was then Colonial Secretary. The detailed provisions of that scheme were announced in July, 1962. It was designed to run to July, 1967, but in point of fact it was speeded up and ended two years earlier. It was designed to purchase 200,000 acres of mixed farmland a year and to settle


70,000 African families on 1·5 million acres in the next five years. The total cost of the scheme was estimated at £27½ million, of which the Government here were to subscribe £19½ million; part of it was to be by grant and part of it was to be by loan.
Kenya became independent in December, 1963, and two months later it was reported to this House that 600 European farms had so far been purchased and that 11,500 African families had been settled and 400 more farms were expected to be purchased. It then became clear that the land purchase was proceeding faster than expected, and that the scheme would be completed by the end of 1965. Discussions on a follow-up scheme were started just before the 1964 General Election.
In November, 1964, after the General Election the Kenya National Farmers' Union sent a memorandum to Her Majesty's Government here, the new Labour Government, stressing the need for a follow-up scheme. In this memorandum there were three points of particular interest today. First, it was estimated that the acreage still required to be bought up was between 1·5 million and 1·7 million; second, that the price must be based on recognised methods of valuation and at least equal to the price paid in the 1 million acre scheme; and, third, that it was essential that valuations should be considered fair, and that there must be a grant element of at least 30 per cent.
I think the House will see a little later on how significant these requirements were. The House will recall that in December, 1964, I instituted an Adjournment debate on this subject and I stressed three points, the need for a decision on the new follow-up scheme, the need for a grant element, and the need for a fair valuation. Hon. Members may see that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 4th December, 1964, at column 1027.
That is the outline of the successful 1 million acre resettlement scheme in Kenya. I pass on now to the second scheme which became known as the 400,000 acre scheme, which I fear, has been less successful. On 13th December, 1964, the then Minister, who is now the Minister of Transport, announced the sending of a mission to Kenya under

the Hon. Maxwell Stamp to look into the whole question of the new scheme. This Mission reported in May, 1965, but I believe that I am right in saying that the report was kept secret. In November, 1965, the new scheme was announced; and 100,000 acres of European mixed farmland were to be purchased each year for four years commencing in April, 1966, Her Majesty's Government would make an interest-free loan of £18 million during the period 1966 to 1970, of which £6·3 million was to be earmarked for land purchase; and there were to be further consultations between the two Governments about the methods of valuation.
I am bound to say that the immediate reaction that I received from Kenya about this announcement was that this was half the annual amount which experts considered essential and was to be continued for just half the recommended period.
Later, the agreement between the two Governments on methods of valuation were concluded—I believe, in August, 1966—but that agreement was also kept confidential. It later transpired, however, that it was based on current market value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. This, again, is significant, as I will explain later.
I want to make this clear to the House. The basic difference between the old, 1 million acre scheme and the new scheme, the 400,000 acre scheme, must be emphasised as the former has proved a success and the latter, so far, a failure. The first scheme received £18 million from Her Majesty's Government here, with a 30 per cent. grant element, while the second received £6·3 million all of which was an interest-free loan. In the first scheme there was an appeal against valuation. Under the second scheme there was no appeal against valuation. In the first scheme, broadly speaking, the offers fell within about 5 per cent. of expected valuation, and under the second scheme, as far as one can see, offers are cut by a minimum of 15 per cent. of the expected valuation.
The new scheme, once the offers were made, caused a storm of protest in Kenya, but I am sorry to say to the Minister that neither the British High Commission in Kenya nor Her Majesty's


Government here did anything practicable to resolve it, the Minister knows this since we have exchanged Questions about this on a number of occasions.

Mr. James Johnson: Could we first be told what were the views, if they were expressed at the time, of Mr. Bruce McKenzie, the Minister of Agriculture in Kenya?

Mr. Wall: Yes, I have the views of Mr. McKenzie, but I do not attribute these views to any particular Minister, and I intend to be entirely fair to the Kenya Government since my case rests against Her Majesty's Government here rather than the Kenya Government.
At this stage, I want to make two points, and the first is really the one which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has just mentioned. It is that the Kenya Government's point of view was, quite fairly, that this question of valuation was a matter between Her Majesty's Government and the British farmers in Kenya; that the money allocated to land purchase was a loan which would have to be repaid in due course, but that African settlement would probably be less productive because of lack of capital and machinery than the European farmers who preceded them and that, therefore, the valuations had to be cut to allow for repayment.
It had been agreed with the British Government that the negotiating range for valuations could be within 20 per cent. up or down Of the valuations put on farms by the Kenya Government's valuer, which means in effect that values would automatically be cut by anything up to 20 per cent. As I said earlier, it appears to have worked out in practice to be about 15 per cent. The second point is that HANSARD of 4th April of this year shows in cols. 31 to 34 that, for the period 1965–66, Kenya received £81·3 million in grants, £45·7 million in loans from Her Majesty's Government, in addition to C.D.C. advances of £13·2 million from 1947 to 1966. This is a total of over £140 million. The British farmers know this, and they believe that some of the taxpayers' money should go to help them.
This brings me on to what has been termed the Trumper Report. The first

offers under the new scheme were made this spring. The farmers concerned believe these to be unfair and they asked Mr. Peter Trumper of Messrs. Cluttons, who is chairman of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and a very responsible person, to go to Kenya and value their farms. I have before me a copy of an unofficial but completely impartial report made by a man of unimpeachable professional ability and integrity. His main conclusions are as follows.
He believes that the method of procedure in this scheme is unfair, for the following reasons:

"1. No breakdown of the valuation is given.
2. The offer is often below the level of the valuation.
3. The time limit is unfairly operated and there is no real opportunity for negotiation.
4. There is no appeal from the valuer's offer.
5. The final takeover is often unfairly, handled."
Here I would add that I understand that a number of farmers have still not been paid for farms which were handed over some months previously. His last criticism is:
No interest is paid on the purchase moneys.
If I may summarise Mr. Trumper's recommendations, they are, first,
That the Kenya Government valuer should be instructed to meet a representative of the British farmers to disclose the method of valuation he is using.…
2. That the valuer should be instructed to give a breakdown of his offer figure in each case, so as to afford an opportunity for fair negotiation.…
3. That the valuer should be instructed to give a single figure as his valuation, and this should be the amount of the offer.…
4. That a simple appeal procedure should be devised.…
5. That fresh offers should be made on there lines to those who so far have refused offers which they believed to be unreasonably low.…
All those recommendations are in accord with normal British practice, and, plainly, the inter-Governmental agreement based on a willing buyer and a willing seller is no longer valid; or, as Mr. Trumper puts it, that
the procedure falls short of the standards implied in the British Government's policy towards British settlers in Kenya.


I believe that Mr. Trumper's criticisms and recommendations are sound. The best way that they can be put into effect by agreement with the Kenya Government is for Her Majesty's Government at this stage to introduce a grant element in the money which they are lending Kenya to buy this land. I believe that the Kenya Government would accept this and that this alone would smooth out all the difficulties and disagreements which are creating bad feeling that could have serious repercussions in Kenya and in this country.
I appeal to the Minister to agree to a grant element on the same lines as that for the million acre scheme. After all, 30 per cent. of £6 million over four years is not much, and I believe that it will be repaid a thousand-fold in good relations in Kenya and between Britain and Kenya.
I am prepared to take a fairly good guess at the arguments which the Minister will put forward against me. The first one will be that this is a fuss about nothing, that 20 of the 31 offers this year have been accepted, and that, therefore, farmers must be willing to sell. However, today the Land Bank advances only 50 per cent., in contrast to the original 90 per cent. some years ago. It makes advances to Kenya citizens only. Few in Kenya have or can obtain sufficient capital to purchase farms worth £12,000 or more. It may be that they can consider buying smaller farms, but the farms under discussion are too expensive for the average African. Therefore, there is no alternative to the farmer but to sell, even at a low valuation. Because of exchange control regulations, this is the only way that he has for getting his capital out of Kenya en bloc. The newly introduced legislation on citizenship and work permits could well become a pistol at his head. Today, he may be willing, but certainly only under duress.
The second argument which the Minister may advance, because it was advanced in another place the other day, is that the scheme of valuation has been agreed between the two Governments. But what right have Her Majesty's Government to agree to a scheme which cuts 20 per cent. off the value of someone else's farm? This attitude causes special grievance, particularly as it was

the action of former British Governments which led to the catastrophic decline in land values in Kenya.
Then again, the Minister may say that the valuations are carried out by professional valuers and that both Governments have agreed that there should be no breakdown communicated to the farmer. Obviously there is something to hide. Why cannot normal professional practice be maintained? Why must there be this secrecy?
It may be said that the British High Commission will be entitled to vet valuations. That is true, but, in accordance with the inter-Governmental agreement, only when the 20 per cent. bracket is exceeded. In any case, what professional advice will the British High Commission have? Is it suggested that it should be that of the Kenya Government valuer, or is it intended to send out a British valuer from this country?
I believe that the Kenya Government have kept their part of the bargain. It is the British Government who have now been exposed. There are to be 20 per cent. cuts, no breakdown of valuations, and no appeal. All those conditions have been agreed by Her Majesty's Government. Why? Can it have been to save money? It must be remembered that British taxpayers' money worth £140 million has already gone to Kenya. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said in another place that help for the development of Kenya must come first. However, I am not so sure about that, because I think that we should first look after our own, and then help Kenya as generously as we can.
I well remember visiting an African Minister of another African country, who said to me, "You know, Mr. Wall, we can never trust the British because they never look after their own tribe." Members of our own tribe are our responsibility, and it is up to Her Majesty's Government to recognise this fact. The only way that they can now do this and settle the growing mistrust is to introduce a grant element of 20 to 30 per cent., which comes to a minimum of £1·3 million spread over four years. This is not very much to give justice to our people and to ensure good relations in Kenya.
I want to deal briefly with two other matters. The first is the Agricultural Settlement Trust. The people concerned are ex-Service farmers who went out after the Second World War under the British Government's sponsored scheme. We had a special responsibility towards them. To be fair to the Minister, this responsibility has not been recognised by previous Governments, to my regret, and I had quite a fight with my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on this matter.
I suggest to the Minister that the minimum requirement for fairness is to see that all these men are included under the terms of the new 40,000-acre scheme. Attempts have been made to take over the trust by the Ministry of Settlement in Kenya. I believe that this would be an abuse of the assurances given to the members and to the trustees. I recognise that the Trust could easily be nationalised by legislation, but I hope very much that this will not happen, because it would undoubtedly increase the insecurity of the minority races, and could have repercussions on foreign investment in Kenya.
My second point concerns the question of compassionate cases. These are old people, many of whom were wounded during the war, and they are living in areas which used to be termed areas of security risk. In 1963 the Conservative Government gave a £700,000 grant to deal with 100 of these cases. In 1964 the Labour Government gave a £365,000 loan to deal with 19 of these cases, and last year they gave a loan of £233,000 which was allocated to purchasing 18 farms. Only six farmers have so far accepted. It is only fair to the Kenya Government to say that they do not want these farms, that they are an embarrassment to them, and that this probably accounts for the low valuations placed on them, far lower than in either of the resettlement schemes.
I think the House must recognise that in most cases this is the only money which these elderly people will have to live on for the rest of their lives, and it is perhaps not surprising that a comparatively large number of offers has been rejected. The Kenya National Farmers' Union has repeatedly asked for a new scheme and for discretion to be given

to the British High Commission to administer a fund for this purpose, but after nearly two years' pressure the Government have not made up their minds about the future of the scheme. I hope that we will hear something about it today.
I turn now to my final subject, the difficult one of the recent deportations from Kenya. This is obviously a matter of considerable delicacy, and one must recognise in this House, and in this country, that in Kenya land has always been a highly charged political issue, and that pressure on land increases as the population of Kenya expands.
President Kenyatta has always made it clear that he wants European farmers to stay in Kenya. He has often acknowledged the contribution which they make to the economy of the country. These, the first deportations of farmers, came therefore as a severe shock, and has undoubtedly done damage to confidence both in Kenya and here in Britain. I give it as my belief—it cannot be more than that—that President Kenyatta was presented with a fait accompli, and had no option but to back those concerned, but there can be no excuse for the un-pleasant and uncivilised way in which these arrests and deportations were carried out, and Her Majesty's Government have rightly protested.
But I am more concerned about the reasons behind these deportations, because it is this aspect which will enable us to judge what may happen in the future. I therefore refer to two statements which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs kindly placed in the Library of the House. The first is a statement by the Vice-President of Kenya, Mr. Arap Moi, in the House in Nairobi, when he said:
… the immigrant communities … must not adopt a racist attitude and they must respect the African people. However, in spite of this, we still have a situation where a few people, who continue to insult Africans in a manner reminiscent of the Colonial era, have spoken disrespectfully of our Head of State, of the Government, and have even been known to go as far as saying that we attained our independence prematurely. I should like to say that in one or two instances some of the farmers are known to have held mock Parliaments",
and he went on to say that they have given their cattle the names of prominent


leaders in the House in Kenya. He continues:
I should like, however, to say the deportations are being made purely on an individual basis.… Of the five Europeans being deported today, these represent a hard core element which is not reflective of those among their community who live here in peace.
I asked the Secretary of State for detailed reasons why at least four of these men had been deported. He also kindly placed in the House another statement made by the Vice-President in the Kenya National Assembly on 6th July. It refers to four of these men, the first of whom is Wing Commander Saunders, and the reason for his deportation is:
This person even has been so awkward that when approached by officials informing him of his deportation, he made remarks that he can employ the whole our General Service unit.
Next there is Mr. Rowbotham, and the reason for his deportation is:
I think he, himself, is unpopular amongst Europeans in the area.
The third one is Mr. Breckenbridge, and about him it is said:
He has all along been anti-African …".
Finally, there is Mr. Golding,
who, on one occasion, shot an African woman and was fined shs.600 in Court.
I want the House to consider very seriously the cases of these four men. Wing Commander Saunders has been on the Settlement Board, that is the ex-Servicemen's board, for farmers who went out there after the war, and he has been prominent in protecting their interests. On three concurrent occasions Mr. Rowbotham has been elected to represent the British farmers in the Molo area. He has been pressing for fair valuations, and was largely instrumental in asking Mr. Trumper to visit Kenya. I understand that he is a permanent resident in Kenya, and, therefore, technically at least he was illegally deported. Mr. Breckenbridge is a retired member of the Special Branch. Mr. Golding did not shoot an African woman it was his half-brother who was responsible. Mr. Golding was I understand 600 miles away at the coast at the time of the incident, and this can easily be checked by court records in Kenya.
I have been asked by the Kenya High Commissioner, Dr. Karanja, whom we

all like and respect, to say that these deportations are in no way connected with the question of land purchase. I leave the House to judge for itself. Wing Commander Saunders and Mr. Rowbotham have been prominent in the fight to obtain publicity for the farmers' case, and in particular for fair valuations. Both have been members of deputations to this country on a number of occasions during the past five years. Both have found it necessary to make a nuisance of themselves, particularly as far as the British High Commission is concerned. I hope that members of the High Commission staff will examine their consciences to see whether at any time they might have said something which could have led to the view that they would be glad to be shot of these "turbulent farmers".
The House knows that 1 have fought many battles on behalf of British civil servants in Africa, particularly in regard to their terms of compensation on Africanisation. I therefore believe that I have a right and a duty to remind the House that many British subjects in Commonwealth African States believe that, in general, British High Commissions and their staffs regard their primary rôle as the maintenance of good relations with the Governments to whom they are accredited, and that the protection of the rights of British subjects comes a very poor second.
I suggest that British subjects have a right to expect British officials of all ranks serving in Africa or elsewhere to protect them, and I hope that the Commonwealth Secretary will remind those serving in Africa of the words printed on every British passport:
That we request and require in the name of Her Majesty all those to whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer as much assistance and protection as may be necessary.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. George Thomas: I thought that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) had given way to me.

Mr. Wall: I had, in fact, concluded my speech.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has been very unfair to the High Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an irregular debate.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I apologise to the Minister, to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and to you, Mr. Speaker, for having arrived a few minutes after the debate began. This is a subject which has been covered with his usual competence and comprehension by my hon. Friend. I want to occupy only a few minutes before the Minister replies to the questions which my hon. Friend has asked.
I begin by taking up the subject with which my hon. Friend ended—the circumstances of the deportation of farmers from Kenya. As is almost universally agreed in this House, it was a minor tragedy, in view of President Kenyatta's desire, and the steps that he has taken, to improve relations between the two races. Her Majesty's Opposition entirely supports the protests made by Her Majesty's Government against this method of treatment of British subjects by a Commonwealth country.
We have the statement by the Kenya High Commissioner, from which my hon. Friend has just quoted, saying that there was no connection between these deportations and the implementation of the 400,000 acre scheme. We shall be grateful for any remarks that the Minister can make on this matter in reply.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman supporting the view advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that the action of our High Commissioner has been regrettable, and almost despicable? It was a rather harsh—I will not use the word "smear"—aspersion to cast upon the plenipotentiary of this Government in Kenya. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend?

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Member read in HANSARD tomorrow what I said? I made my point very carefully. I said

that I hoped that the staffs of all the High Commissions serving in Africa would examine their consciences to see if they could at any time have created a situation which has led a comparatively large number of Europeans to believe that they are not receiving the protection to which they are entitled. Whatever the Minister may say, it is a widely-held view in Africa, especially at the moment in Kenya and Zambia.

Mr. Wood: It would be desirable if I were allowed to continue with my speech. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will be able to continue his point later. I heard both what my hon. Friend said and the point made by the hon. Member. I was talking about the statement made by the other High Commissioner in respect of the lack of connection between these deportations and the implementation of the 400,000 acre scheme.
I want to ask the Minister a question about this scheme, which was touched on by my hon. Friend. I believe it is right to say that none of the £18 million loaned by the British Government for development in Kenya was definitely tied to the buying out of British farmers. I have studied the information sheet put out by the Minister's Department in November 1965, which says:
The above"—
that is, the loans representing a disbursement of £18 million—
will, it is estimated, absorb just over one-third of the £18 million over the next four years.
It seems clear that the less spent in Kenya in buying out British farmers the more money is available for other developments there. It is only too clear that it must be to the advantage of the Government of Kenya as far as possible to cut down the money devoted to buying out the farmers. This is an immensely important point, to which I hope the Minister will give us a full reply. Is it now possible to reconsider the basis and conditions of the loan so as definitely to tie a certain proportion to the purpose that I have in mind?
Another complication mentioned by my hon. Friend is the conflict of interest


between the farmers and the Kenya Government on the question of farm valuations. My hon. Friend drew attention to the various recommendations of the Trumper Report. It seems wholly wrong —and I should like to know if the hon. Member has any justification for it—that the valuer of the Kenya Government should not give a detailed breakdown of each valuation so that it can be examined in detail by the farmer concerned, and so that reasoned arguments may be produced against it. Again I ask whether the Government are prepared to take this matter up with the Kenya Government on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Those who have taken part in and listened to debates about Kenya during the last twenty years have been rewarded by an almost miraculous change in the relations between Kenya and Britain. Very few would have dared to hope for this in the 1950s. But it would be equally wise for us to remember—and for the Government of Kenya to remember—that although this community of interest has been growing closer, it is still very young and, therefore, still very fragile. I believe that the whole House recently suffered a setback and a severe shock when it heard of the events to which my hon. Friend has referred.
All of us hope that the lesson of the cruel circumstances of these deportations has been marked in Kenya and that those responsible are in no doubt that a repetition of these circumstances could do a great deal to destroy the progress of the last decade.

1.7 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I intervene to make a brief comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) concerning our High Commissioners in Africa. It has been my privilege to meet many of these High Commissioners and to move around a fair amount in Africa. Those who carry the responsibility of representing Great Britain in Africa, as in other parts of the world, have very difficult tasks which are not made easier by what the hon. Member has said.
I want the House to be assured completely, utterly and absolutely that our High Commissioners regard it as a top

priority to watch the interests of our people there, as well as to maintain good relations between the Government to to which they are accredited and ourselves. On behalf of the Commonwealth Office, I repudiate any suggestion or hint that in this case there has not been absolutely proper care on the part of our High Commissioner for the European community who serve in Kenya.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I was in Kenya a few weeks ago. I support what my hon. Friend has said. I was discussing with the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. B. R. McKenzie, the whole question of the great amity, good will and harmony which is such a marked feature in East Africa. There has been an astounding change in the whole atmosphere. One need go back only to 1954, 1955 and 1956, and to the days of Mau Mau. It is amazing to myself and others who have experience of African affairs. It is the most heartening thing about the whole Continent. I therefore object to the things which were said in this Chamber just now about the alleged behaviour or the action, or the attitude of the High Commissioner in Nairobi. I know that what the hon. Member has said is not true. It is wrong to suggest that our High Commission there is not carrying out its duty towards the Anglo-Saxons in the White Highlands of Kenya—

Mr. George Thomas: And the Welsh.

Mr. Johnson: And the Welsh, too. I deprecate what has been said in this Chamber about our High Commissioners not doing their duty on certain occasions. It is not good enough. I have enjoyed the hospitality of both white and black citizens, and I regret and repudiate the hon. Member's remarks.

1.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. A. E. Oram): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull (Mr. James Johnson) have sprung so vigorously to the defence of our High Commission in Nairobi against the accusations of the hon. Member for


Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I also reject the suggestion that the deportations were connected with the deportees' attitude to land valuations. The hon. Member for Haltemprice referred to the assurance of the Kenya High Commissioner in London, and said that he was a man for whom he had great respect, but then showed some disrespect by suggesting that his word could not be taken at its face value.
The hon. Member has been a consistent questioner on land transfer in Kenya and he and I have had a great deal of detailed correspondence in this connection. I am sure that he has been glad of this opportunity to deploy his arguments and opinions and a great number of facts at greater length than can possibly be done at Question time.
Before I turn, like the hon. Member, to a useful and necessary little history of the scheme, I would refer first to the question of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) about whether it would be possible to raise with the Kenya Government the question of tieing a certain proportion of the loan which we have made to land purchase. I do not think that this is necessary. It would certainly be possible: indeed, there are continual consultations between the two Governments about the implementation of the scheme and it would be possible, if difficulties emerged for this to be raised, but the way in which the scheme is working at the moment does not raise in our minds this necessity.

Mr. Wood: But would the hon. Gentleman agree that, unless a proportion is definitely tied, it must be to the Kenya Government's advantage to spend a large proportion on other developments and a smaller proportion on this end?

Mr. Oram: Clearly, if less is spent on one objective, more is available for another, but if the implication is that the Kenya Government are, for this reason, deliberately spending less and that this is influencing the valuations, I must point out that there are safeguards, in that the High Commission can have knowledge of any such reductions which do not conform to the agreement which is reached between the two Governments and could take action if there were any suspicion, but there is no ground for such action.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Trumper Report and asked whether representations could not be made to the Kenya Government about a breakdown of the valuations, which was a major point in the Report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has now received a copy of the Report. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not an official document but privately commissioned, but my right hon Friend is considering it and also whether any representations should be made, and in this consideration he will bear in mind the points about the breakdown.
Schemes for the transfer of land in Kenya from European to African ownership have been supported by the British Government since 1961, when they agreed to provide finance totalling about £17¼ million for high density settlement under what came to be known as the Million Acre Scheme. Her Majesty's Government also supported various other schemes in succeeding years. The financial commitments for these amounted to a further £7 million or so. When the Million Acre Scheme was introduced, it was agreed that the situation should be reviewed in its last year of operation.
That would have been in 1966, but it was subsequently decided to bring forward the date for review and, in 1964, the Kenya Government put forward proposals for a further programme of land transfer. These proposals, which involved very large sums of money, were awaiting consideration when this Government took office in 1964. Both the British and the Kenya Governments agreed that they should be examined on the spot in Kenya by a small expert team, and this was the Mission led by the Hon. Maxwell Stamp.
In its Report in 1965, the Stamp Mission noted that there was an immediate need to maintain a market in land and generally to improve agricultural productivity. It said that there should be further studies of agricultural problems in Kenya and that an expanding programme of land consolidation and reconstruction should be undertaken. It recommended a continuing programme of land purchase at a much reduced level over a four year period in the first instance, but that there should be a pause in settlement to enable past results to


be analysed and present and future practice to be improved.
Discussions took place in London in November, 1965 between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who was then Minister of Overseas Development, and a Kenya Government delegation, and it was announced that interest-free loans leading to the disbursement of £18 million would be provided during 1966–70 for the transfer of European mixed farms and general development. It was estimated that just over a third of this sum, about £6 million, would be absorbed by the transfer of 100,000 acres per annum for the next four years.
Briefly, this annual programme is composed of three elements—(a) about 50,000 acres for purchase by the Kenya Agricultural Development Corporation of transitional farms in areas of vital agricultural production; (b) up to 20,000 acres for low density settlement, although, because of the urgent need to complete the purchase of land for settlement under the Million Acre Scheme, the Kenya Department of Settlement has not yet been able to make a start on the new settlement programme; and (c) about 27,000 acres for private sales with mortgage assistance from the Kenya Land Bank.
That is the essence of the scheme and I now turn to the method of valuation under the new scheme. This has become, unfortunately, rather controversial since the visit to Kenya of Mr. Trumper, a professional valuer from this country. The hon. Member for Haltemprice was right to praise his professional qualifications and unimpeachable integrity, and I hope that he will accept that there are valuers in Kenya of equal professional competence and equally unimpeachable integrity, that in this matter it is often a conflict of view between people like Mr. Trumper and people in Kenya of equal standing, and it is not easy for laymen like the hon. Member and me to adjudicate between the experts. At the time of the 1965 discussions the methods to be used for the valuation of farms to be purchased had not been completed and it was agreed between the two Governments that there should be a joint United Kingdom—Kenya working party of professional valuers under the impartial chairmanship of the

valuation member of the Stamp Mission. The report of this working party provided the basis of the new land transfer programme. As a result of the report of the Mission and further negotiations with the Kenya Government, I announced in the House on 9th August, 1966, that the two Governments had agreed that the basis of valuation for purchases under the new programme by the Kenya authorities should be current market values as assessed by professional valuers of the Kenya Lands Department. Purchases would continue to be on a willing buyer—willing seller basis.
In the first year's purchase programme of the Agricultural Development Corporation, 31 offers of purchase have been made, and of these 20 have been accepted. In our view these are satisfactory figures and they indicate that the programme has been going reasonably well. But, as is clear from the hon. Member's activities, a small group of farmers were dissatisfied with some of the offers that had been made and for this reason they arranged for Mr. Trumper to visit Kenya to investigate the situation on their behalf.
The Kenya Government did not object to this visit, but they were not prepared to agree to meetings between Mr. Trumper and their own professional valuers employed by the Lands Department to discuss the method and conduct of valuations. They took the view that these matters were the subject of inter-Governmental arrangements with the British Government and that they were not prepared to discuss them with private individuals. The British Government had not, of course, sponsored Mr. Trumper's visit officially, but through the British High Commission they indicated to the Kenya Government that misunderstandings might arise if Mr. Trumper heard only one side of the story. Nevertheless, the Kenya Government were not prepared to change their decision.
Mr. Trumper has now made his report to his clients and, as I have indicated, my right hon. Friend has received a copy. In my reply to the right hon. Gentleman I indicated that he is studying it and will consider whether representations arising from it are necessary. The report is critical of some aspects of the valuation


arrangements, but, as we foresaw, it is of necessity based on information provided by Mr. Trumper's clients. Had Mr. Trumper been able to meet the Kenya Government's valuers, some of the difficulties to which he referred might have been disposed of—we concede that —or at least a better understanding might have been reached.
At this point I should like to repeat that nothing has happened and no evidence has been produced which has impaired the full confidence of the British Government in the impartiality and professional integrity of the Kenya Government's professional valuers, a confidence which is based on years of experience of the work of their Department, often carried out in difficult and controversial conditions. Hon. Members must realise that it is the duty of the valuers under the current scheme not only to value farms but to negotiate their purchase on behalf of the Agricultural Development Corporation, and we are confident that, in accordance with the agreement reached between the two Governments, they are negotiating the purchase of farms at what they have assessed to be current market values.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Member will appreciate that I made no criticism of the valuers. I criticised the machinery of valuation agreed between the two Governments.

Mr. Oram: We are satisfied that this is a good scheme of valuation based on a very competent report by a very competent working party. I am glad that the hon. Member feels that the scheme, which we believe to be suitable, is being properly implemented.
The expatriate valuers employed by the Kenya Government have a crucially important rôle to play in the implementation of the land transfer programme. Their job is difficult enough already and I suggest that we in the House ought to do nothing that might make their task ever more difficult.
The hon. Gentleman suggested—I think that he was repeating a suggestion put by forward by the Kenya National Farmers' Union—that the difficulties which have arisen would have been overcome if the British Government had made

available a grant element. He indicated that in the earlier scheme there was a grant element. It is true that there is no grant element in these current arrangements, and I want to insist that there is no prospect of the introduction of such an element. On the other hand—and this is a point of which the hon. Member should take full note when comparing the present scheme with the million acre scheme—the present loan, unlike previous loans to the Kenya Government, is interest free, and this is a highly significant characteristic. It is estimated that the fact that the loan is interest free is the equivalent of a 65 per cent. grant spread over the period of a loan.
It has been suggested—the hon. Member did not make the point—that the Agricultural Development Corporation is forced to offer low valuation because it has to pay interest on the money which is on-lent to it by the Kenya Government. I know that he did not make the point, but it has been made and it is worth a reply. Whethere interest is payable or not, that is not a point taken into consideration by the valuer, who in accordance with the agreement between the two Governments, is instructed to base his valuation on current market values.

Mr. Wall: I appreciate what the hon. Member said about the value of an interest-free loan, but a grant element would allow the Kenya Government to be much more flexible in the whole question of valuation.

Mr. Oram: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means by "much more flexible" He may be talking about a point which I discussed earlier with his right hon. Friend. I assure him that the valuer will not negotiate at a level below current market values.
If, in the purchase of any particular farm, the A.D.C. wish to depart from these arrangements, they are bound under the terms of the agreement to refer the matter to the British High Commission. In no case so far have they done so or sought to buy a farm at a figure less than that assessed by the valuer as the current market value.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member raised the important question of compassionate cases and I want to say


something new about that. He inquired about future arrangements with regard to the purchase of compassionate case farms. For the first round of cases—that is, 1965—accepted under the scheme, 30 offers to purchase were made and 19 offers were accepted.
In the second round, 18 offers were made and 6 accepted. Of those who refused or did not reply to the offers, some had disposed of their farms by private sale. It is intended that the scheme should continue on the basis of the same criteria as before, that is to say the degree of exposure to special risks because of old age, infirmity or isolation and financial inability to leave the farm unless it is sold.
Farmers must also be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Valuation of farms will ordinarily be on current market value, and in view of the present stable security situation in Kenya, and the security situation is fundamental in our consideration of any particular case, I would expect that very few cases will arise in future.
The scheme must now be regarded as having very largely fulfilled its original purpose, although it will be maintained in order that the exceptional cases may still be dealt with. Like its predecessors, the 400,000-acre scheme is not in any way a compensation scheme for British farmers, introduced because of political changes which have rightly taken place in Kenya. It is an important part of the development programme of the Kenya Government, which is being implemented with the support and concurrence of the British Government.
It is essential, from the point of view of the Kenya Government, that the prices paid for British-owned farms should not be so high that a burden is placed on the country's economy. Equally, if the land transfer programme is to continue on a "willing buyer—willing seller" basis, prices must not be so low that a British farmer cannot willingly accept them. Our information indicates that a

reasonable balance is being maintained and that the agreement which has been worked out between the two Governments is proving reasonably satisfactory. There will always be arguments in individual cases—they take place in this country, as we know only too well—about the valuations placed on a farmer's property. If the farmer feels that his farm is more valuable to him than the price offered, there is no obligation to sell.
The land transfer schemes in Kenya have been generously supported in recent years by the British Government and taxpayers. Since 1961 they have made available £30 million in loans and grants for such schemes. We must recognise, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said he recognised, that the attitude of the Kenya Government to this problem has been entirely praiseworthy. There are influential citizens in Kenya who feel strongly that the prices paid for British farms are higher than the country can afford. Some also feel that the development funds devoted to the 400,000-acre scheme could be more usefully employed in other ways.
This relates to what the right hon. Member for Bridlington spoke of. It has been to the substantial advantage of the British farming community as a whole that, none the less the Kenya Government has seen fit to continue with the programme of land transfer. Those members of that community who are still in Kenya but who hope to dispose of their farms under the balance of the current programme of land transfer would be the chief sufferers if controversy is carried too far and the future of the programme is therefore jeopardised.
There are many interests involved, and sometimes different and conflicting views have been expressed. The scheme devised by the two Governments, after long and careful negotiations, offers a means of meeting the aspirations of the people of Kenya and, in our view, represents a realistic and satisfactory solution to the problems of many British farmers.

ST. KITTS, NEVIS AND ANGUILLA

1.35 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: It is with sincere regret that I raise this problem of the situation in St. Kitts, and Anguilla. It is a situation which is very dangerous and which is deteriorating. It could also affect many other parts of the West Indies. It was in the early part of the year that six West Indian Territories were granted this new associated status. This meant that they had control of their own internal affairs but that the British Government looked after their external relations and external defence.
Any stigma of colonialism was removed from this status by the fact that either party could contract out, through certain procedures. It was a true association of the Islands with Great Britain. None of us has any quarrel with this new status, and the general concept of co-operation between the islands and another country. It is an admirable compromise which could be developed in other countries. But, as with all general concepts, great care must be taken in timing and method of implementation. I want to draw attention to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla because the situation there following the granting of new status is anything but happy.
St. Kitts received associated status on 27th February of this year. Five months later, Anguilla has declared its independence and the writ of the Central Government no longer runs over this small island of 6,000 inhabitants, 70 miles north of St. Kitts. Virtually all Opposition leaders are in prison, with no charges preferred against them. Only two have had charges preferred against them. There has been a declaration of emergency and a number of people including Mr. Milnes Gaskell, a United Kingdom citizen, have been detained without trial or charge.
There are reports that arms have been imported into St. Kitts and Anguilla, a disturbing report in the present situation of tension and fear undoubtedly existing in the area. Her Majesty's Government take the line that all the correct constitutional procedures have been adhered to. There is doubt whether this is strictly so. By no stretch of the imagination could anyone say that the experience of associated status in these three islands so

far has been a success. Real fear stalks upon the islands of St. Kitts and Anguilla. I want to address myself to two basic questions. First, why has this happened? Why have hopes been so quickly falsified and, secondly, now that this has happened, what can we do about it? I believe that Her Majesty's Government must bear a tremendously heavy load of responsibility for this tragic state of affairs. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the area knows that the Anguillans are a proud and hard-working people with their own traditions, a closely knit community, jealous of their individuality and deeply concerned about the future of their country.
At the Constitutional Conference in May, 1966, these fears were voiced by Anguillans, who were afraid that they would not recieve proper treatment from the Central Government in St. Kitts after independence. The fears then raised by these people were largely dispelled by a promise from Her Majesty's Government, written into the Conference report, that each island would have its own local council. This is what allowed them to go home fairly happy. Paragraph 50 of Annexe B to the Report reads:
The Constitution will provide that there shall be a Council for Nevis and a Council for Anguilla; that the council for each Island shall be the principal organ of local government for the Island: and that at least two-thirds of all members of each Council shall be elected on the same franchise as Members of the House of Assembly.
I ask the House to note that in that extract there was no reference at this stage to any delay in setting up these councils, nor to the proposal that the council should be nominated, even though only for an interim period before elections were held. All this is subsequent to the granting of Associated Status.
The Anguillan's fears as to there future were stilled, therefore, and they eagerly looked forward to the setting up of local councils, but no action at all was taken to organise local elections or the setting up of these councils. The fact is, and the Government must go in the dock for it, that the Government seemed to lose all interest at this vital stage, and it was not until January, 1967, some seven months later, that anyone was even sent to St. Kitts to help the Government


there in the organisation of the local elections. From about July onwards, therefore, there was in Anguilla a growing fear that they would not get the councils they had been promised.
The fears of the people turned to acute alarm when the Secretary of the People's Action Movement—the Opposition party which obtained almost all the votes in Anguilla at the previous election— received a letter, a strange letter, from Mr. Bradshaw, the Prime Minister in St. Kitts. The letter is addressed to Mr. Caines, the Secretary of the People's Action Movement, and reads:
Dear Sir, Reference is made to a letter of instant date addressed to me and signed by yourself as '(Secretary, P.A.M.)', 'P. E. Adams M.L.C. for Anguilla of P.A.M.' and 'William Herbert, President, P.A.M.', referring to 'proposals as to the composition and functions of the proposed local Governments under our new Constitution.'
There are no 'proposals' before my Government.
(Signed) Robert Bradshaw, Chief Minister.
That was a most surprising letter, and it naturally struck alarm in every Anguillan heart.
As a result of the fear, alarm and consternation caused by that letter, Dr. Herbert, leader of the People's Action Movement, and Mr. Adams came to London early in February, when they saw the right hon. Lady the former Minister of State. At that meeting they were told that local elections could not be held until December of this year, and that, in the meantime, councils would be nominated. This proposal was later written into the Constitution. There had been no mention of this delay in the Report of the Constitutional Conference in the previous year. Dr. Herbert and Mr. Adams returned home undoubtedly two very worried and unhappy men.
In the meantime, the West Indies Bill was debated here, and my noble Friend, Lord Jellicoe, in another place, put forward to the Minister the fears of the Anguillans, but the Government were adamant that Associated Status must go forward as planned.
My point is that Associated Status should not have been granted until after local councils had been set up, as had been promised. Her Majesty's Government have delayed granting Associated Status to St. Vincent—for other reasons, it is true—and there was no reason why they should

not have delayed granting Associated Status to St. Kitts and Anguilla. The Anguillans were not satisfied with promises for the future. After all, some of them remembered an earlier speech of Mr. Bradshaw in which he said that he would make Anguilla into a desert. They were not assured when these happenings occurred. Had the Government taken this elementary precaution, it is very probable that the present trouble would not have arisen at all.
Let me move on now to the events that have occurred since the granting of Associated Status. The Government have shown an almost unbelievable complacency. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Overseas Development was booed when he went to Anguilla during the independence ceremonies. All the reports from the area were of extreme dissatisfaction and alarm in Anguilla. The right hon. Lady the former Minister of State has been bombarded with Questions in the House and in correspondence, but to every inquiry the reply was that everything was all right and that there was absolutely no cause for alarm.
The right hon. Lady, who is now the Minister for Social Security, in a letter of 23rd February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), said:
I am told that there is now a very much calmer atmosphere in Anguilla.
The Minister of Overseas Development said on 10th March:
I am glad to assure the right hon. Gentleman"—
that is, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington:
that the reports which I read about the troubles in Anguilla were exaggerated. There certainly was a small demonstration, but by way of a change it was for Her Majesty's Government to continue to control Anguilla. However, it is quite clear that Anguilla is a part of St. Kitts and Nevis and when I met the Deputy-Premier it was clear that the bulk of the people expressed that wish.
The hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, who is to reply to this debate, was also guilty of complacency because on 21st March he stated:
…I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen since the inauguration of Statehood."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1435.]


All this, while, in fact, the situation was far from calm, a minor volcano was on the point of eruption and St. Kitts had become almost a police state. Either the Government had no idea of what was going on or, which is perhaps worse, were deliberately burying their heads in the sand and deceiving the House.
Let us now come to more recent events. On 31st May, the police force of some 27 men was expelled from Anguilla, which declared itself independent. On 11th June, after an alleged armed attack on the headquarters of the police and defence forces in St. Kitts, Dr. Herbert, other Opposition leaders, Mr. Boon—the son of Sir Geoffrey Boon, Q.C.—and Mr. Milnes Gaskell, a United Kingdom subject, were arrested. Miss Diana Prior-Palmer, daughter of a former Member, was also arrested, maltreated, detained in appalling circumstances and then deported. This led Mr. Bradshaw to declare a state of emergency.
As regards the legality of the actions of the St. Kitts Government, I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. Paragraph 17(2) of the St. Kitts Constitution Order, 1967, states that:
… any declaration of emergency shall lapse (a) in the case of a declaration made when the Legislature is sitting, at the expiration of a period of seven days beginning with the date of publication of the declaration; and (b) in any other case, at the expiration of a period of 21 days beginning with the date of publication of the declaration, unless it has in the meantime been approved by a Resolution of the House of Assembly supported by the votes of two-thirds of all the Members of the House.
Has the declaration been approved by Resolution of the House of Assembly with a two-thirds majority? I should like a categoric "Yes" or "No" to that question.
I now turn to the future. The great tragedy of this affair is that the West Indies as a whole, quite wrongly, are beginning to get a bad name, and I am sure that most of the other West Indian Governments are well aware of this. What the West Indians require probably more than anything else is a new injection of capital and the greatest possible encouragement of tourism. But if things continue as they are in St. Kitts and Anguilla, trouble will spread to other islands. People are rather hazy about geography, and will probably say, "We

will not go to the West Indies this year. It does not seem very healthy there." To my mind, the best answer is for other West Indian territories to try to bring pressure to bear on St. Kitts so that these disputes between the two islands can be speedily sorted out. I am delighted, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is, that the West Indies Mission has been sent to St. Kitts. I agree with the Government that in the present situation this is the best course to take. I am sure that the Government will give support to this initiative. I shall be glad if the Minister has further information of what progress can be made in this direction he will give it to us today.
I hope that the Government will bring pressure to bear so that Mr. Milnes Gaskell—a United Kingdom subject—can either be brought to trial or released. The tribunal which is sitting at the moment is, I understand, merely investigating whether the grounds for his continued detention are valid. He has not been charged. In the past, little sense of urgency has been shown by the Government on this. It took 10 days before he was even seen by a British representative. I hope that the Government will protect him from continued detention without trial. I am glad that Lord Shepherd's first mission in his new capacity, on which I wish him well, is to go to St. Kitts. So at least one Minister will now know what is going on. That will be a change. It should have happened long ago.
There is the question of aid. I do not suggest for one moment that aid should be cut off from St. Kitts, but the £272,000 estimated aid for St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla for 1967–68 must surely include money which should have gone for the benefit of Anguilla. If Anguilla is no longer under the control of St. Kitts, there must surely be a case for a reappraisal of the level of this aid, at least on a temporary basis. We are, of course, still responsible for the external defence of St. Kitts. If any external threats were to develop, I should like the assurance of this Government that this responsibility would be exercised.
While it must be obvious from my remarks that I think this Government have been guilty of complacency.


ignorance and even duplicity, I believe that the answer to this West Indian problem must come from the West Indies themselves. I would support any action which the Government might take to help the West Indian Mission which is now in existence. All of us and all other West Indian islands should be grateful for the efforts that are being made by the Ministers from Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and Barbados to bring some sanity and reconciliation into this inflammable area. Many who know that Mr. Bradshaw had high hopes of him when he became the premier of these islands. He is charming, hard-working, a good speaker and a flambuoyant personality. It is natural for Governments to dislike opposition and for individuals to resent criticism, but that is the very essence of democracy. I hope that Mr. Bradshaw will do all in his power to act fairly and responsibly and with due regard to the rights of others and that he will live up to the high expectations we had of him when he took the office of Chief Minister.
As for the Government here, as we go into Recess we shall be watching them carefully. Time and again Britons and British property abroad has been subjected to intolerable insults. We shall watch how the Government protect our citizens abroad and what they do to help to bring about a sensible and lasting settlement in the dispute between St. Kitts and Anguilla.

1.54 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Mr. Milnes-Gaskell, who has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), is a constituent of mine. To allow a British subject to be detained without a charge, without trial for six weeks and with the British Government doing nothing at all to help him, is a disgrace.
The facts are that Mr. Milnes-Gaskell had a hotel in Nevis and when the Opposition leaders came here last February to meet the Minister of State he acted as a public relations officer when they were in this country. For that act of a British subject in representing to his Government the views of the Opposition party in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, he is now suffering de-

tention without trial. He was arrested on 11th June, the day after the first 19 were arrested. He and Mr. Geoffrey Boon were arrested on the Sunday. He received no statement of the grounds on which he was arrested until 17th June, within the seven days. The statement of the grounds of detention which he received said:
You, James Milnes-Gaskell, during the year 1967 both within…
Note this—
and outside the State encouraged civil disobedience throughout the State thereby endangering the peace and public safety and public order of the State.
It is quite clear, vague as those charges are, that they relate to his visit to the Minister of State when he came here to put the views of the Anguillans.
The High Court of St. Kitts ruled that that statement of grounds was inadequate and did not conform with the Constitution. So far as I know—I hope the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—Mr. Gaskell has received since that time no other statement of the grounds on which he is detained. He has not been charged. He and others have applied for writs of habeas corpus. This is one of the most serious aspects of the case. I think it true to say that all the 22 applied for writs of habeas corpus and in four cases writs were granted by the judge after five adjournments. Immediately they were granted, in the case of Mr. Geoffrey Boon, when he was leaving the prison under a writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Bradshaw had him rearrested under the same emergency powers. All four were rearrested either immediately or at the most after a lapse of four hours.
This is causing those interested in this case to have some doubts whether justice is being properly done under what appears to be an unusual form of emergency powers, under a dictatorship. Under the Constitution those who are detained must have their cases reviewed within a month. I do not know—I should like the Minister of State to tell us—what that actually means. Now six weeks have passed and the cases have not yet been reviewed. It is true that a review body was set up on 8th July, within the prescribed time, but it immediately adjourned and there has been no review while these men linger in gaol.
I have with me a singular document which I wish to let the House know about. I have a photostat copy of a letter signed by or on behalf of all the detainees making an appeal to Britain. It is dated 12th July, and it states:
We the 22 political detainees of Dictator Bradshaw of St. Kitts have now been in prison for one month without reasonable cause being shown.
It goes on to say:
Among the varied 'reasons' for individuals' detention are 'Civil Disobedience' and 'writing two letters criticising the Government'".
How many on both sides of this House, if conditions were the same, would be detained here without trial for that offence? The letter goes on:
In spite of the farcical nature of these reasons, the island judge has seen fit to adjourn habeas corpus applications no less than five times. When finally four applications were granted the detainees were immediately redetained under fresh detention orders signed by Bradshaw's rubber stamp Governor. Bradshaw also forced a magistrate who had granted bail in one case to revoke that grant by threat of imprisonment under a detention order.
We feel that the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution are being abrogated to such a degree, as to justify, standing alone, the suspension of this Constitution by Britain.
I will read just one more passage from the letter. If the Minister of State wishes to have this letter at the end of the debate, I should be happy for him to see it, with the signatures attached. The letter also says:
We believe that responsibility for the present situation, which is one of utter desperation, lies firmly with Britain. She gave full internal self-government to the Territory of St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla at a time when the whole Territory was a virtual dictatorship and Anguilla was in a state of near anarchy. But we also believe that if Britain suspends this Constitution and installs an independent governor to rule by decree for such time as it may take to establish the conditions necessary for a democracy to work, then she will do herself a tremendous amount of good throughout the Caribbean. We feel that the whole future of the many islands in the Caribbean depends upon British suspension or otherwise of our Constitution within a week or two. Unrest and violence is already anticipated in Antigua, where extra police arc being brought in. The United States Virgin Island and Barbados, too, will have reason to view the present position in St. Kitts with grave anxiety …

If Britain decides to act too late in the relief of St. Kitts and Anguilla, it will become the tragedy of West Indian history.
I believe that to be a restrained and important document for the Minister of State and the Government to consider. These men are not pleading so much for their own release as for good order and good government in their country. I believe that the British Government have a terrible load of responsibility in this matter. Where was the Governor at the time when Mr. Bradshaw exercised his emergency powers, when the orders had to be signed by the Governor? He was not in the island. He was away in New York.
Where was the British Representative? Was there a British Representative to look after the interests of British subjects in the island? I give full credit to the work Mr. Stewart Roberts has done since that date, but it came far too late. Surely when a new constitution is being started the British Government owe a measure of responsibility to ensure that they have representatives in the Territory to look after the interests of their subjects. I believe that the Government have been extremely dilatory in this matter. I ask them immediately to secure the release of my constituent, who is a British subject, and to secure peace and good order, instead of anarchy, in St. Kitts.

2.4 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I am not seeking to prevent others from taking part in the debate, but I think that it will be for the advantage of the House if I state the Government's case at an early stage. I have come to this responsibility since my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) was promoted to be Minister of Social Security.
I come to a very difficult problem. When the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) used the adjective "anguishing", I thought how right he was. No one can feel happy about the events in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla as they have unfolded in recent days. As this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss the situation there, I hope that it will be of some assistance if I state the salient facts.
First, I want to make it clear beyond a peradventure that the Anguillans,


although they have now taken certain steps which they regard as having effected the secession of Anguilla, did not have secession as part of their programme when associated status was being discussed. The Leader of the People's Action Movement and the Member of the Legislature elected in Anguilla—Mr. Adams I believe—both came to London to make representations about local government. They made it clear—the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was fair about this—that what they were asking for was for Association Day to be deferred until elected councils actually came into being, but that they were not asking for secession. They based their fears about local government on what they believed to be proposals under consideration by the Executive Council in the previous December, but they knew that a United Kingdom expert from O.D.M. had been preparing a report which their Government had then to consider.
There were in fact practical reasons why local government elections could not be arranged before 27th February. Acceptance of these practical reasons for delay does not seem a very good basis for doubting Mr. Bradshaw's intention to arrange for elections. On the contrary, the proposal that for an interim period, which was not to extend beyond the end of the year, the councils should be nominated was itself evidence of his determination to have councils in being by Association Day, even if they could not be elected councils, and the voice of Anguilla in the nomination for this Council, was to be heard and fully taken into account.
Similar arrangements worked perfectly in Nevis. They would have given the Anguillans, through their elected representative Mr. Adams a very large say in who the members should be. It was not foreseen that, because the Anguillans could not have elections 10 months earlier than was promised, they would press their opposition to the point of attempting to secede.
In this connection there is one other point which I want to clear up. I refer to assurances that those local government elections would be held in June or July of this year. These assurances were based on discussions which a senior official of the Commonwealth Office had with the Chief Minister and the Attorney-

General in St. Kitts during a visit in February. He made known our view that these elections should be held as early as possible and should not be left open until the end of the year. They discussed the practical difficulties of completing the legislation and the detailed arrangements for elections in Nevis and Anguilla.
Although the Chief Minister hoped to carry through his plans for nominated councils for the interim period, he agreed that if nominated councils could not be established the elections could be held in June or July. The Chief Minister consulted the Members elected for Nevis and for Anguilla with a view to obtaining from them names for these appointments. By the time he returned from a tour of Europe, the Nevis Council had been inaugurated, but Mr. Adams had been unable to provide names for Anguilla.
The thought that I want to leave with the House on this side of the matters raised is that even if the Anguillans had not raised a finger, they could still have been sure of having by the end of this year the properly elected council for Anguilla which was offered, and accepted, at the London Conference.
I was asked certain questions by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and I hope to reply to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) as well. I was asked whether the declaration of emergency had been approved with the requisite two-thirds majority in the Legislature, and the answer is "Yes, Sir. It has been". I know that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that score.
Now the state of emergency and the detention of persons without trial under emergency regulations. We naturally have anxiety, and when British subjects are detained without trial the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are quite right to bring the matter to the House. But I hope it will be accepted for a fact that under the Association arrangements we are not responsible for internal security and we have no power to interfere with the security measures taken by the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla except in so far as a matter of defence or external affairs is involved. It is the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and not Her


Majesty's Government, who have to be satisfied that a state of emergency exists. There is no doubt that the Government of St. Kitts were so satisfied before the state of emergency was declared on 30th May. Thereupon they promulgated, as the constitution permits the emergency measures which they regarded were made necessary by the situation.
I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that when the Governor is not there, there is a duly appointed deputy governor who has full authority to act, and he has, I believe, no choice but to act on the advice of the Government if they indicate that a state of emergency exists and call upon him to sign a proclamation accordingly.
The protection of the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual is left to the Constitution. Chapter I of the Constitution contains the relevant provision. It is not to us, but to the High Court, that any one must apply who alleges that in respect of himself there has been a contravention of the Chapter It has been suggested today that Mr. Bradshaw's Government have made a mockery of this provision because no sooner had the detainees obtained writs of habeas corpus and been released but they were re-arrested. They are still in detention. Let me give the House the facts. In two of the four cases where writs have been granted, I am informed that the applications for writs of habeas corpus succeeded solely on the ground that the statements given to them of the grounds of their detention were too vague and did not give enough detail. The court did not decide whether the Government had adequate grounds or not. It merely said that the information given was too vague. The Government of Mr. Bradshaw in the cases referred to made their charge more specfic and felt that they were, I understand, then fulfilling the demands of the court that the charge should be more specific.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a charge. No charge has yet been made except in two cases. He is implying, I suppose, that the court having held the order of detention to be invalid, a new order with a new statement of grounds has been delivered.

Mr. Thomas: I am much obliged. It was a new statement, more specific. The

review tribunal will have something to say on that. The telegram which I received this morning from my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place tells me that the tribunal, which has unfortunately in my judgment been delayed, has not yet resumed. The Chairman is still in Antigua where he is engaged in a case before the Court of Appeal. He is an independent barrister. He has told St. Kitts Government that he will return to Basseterre on 1st August and hopes to resume the tribunal hearing on Wednesday, 2nd August. The review tribunal will have to say whether there are adequate grounds or not for the current detention of these people.
The issue of a second detention order in respect of a person just released is not necessarily flouting the Constitution. It rather suggests that the Government believed their grounds of detention to be sound and were prepared to state them in greater detail rather than in the vague statement originally made.
As for the question whether there are several grounds for detention in any particular case, the Constitution provides specifically for review by an independent and impartial tribunal. It has to be presided over by a person appointed by the Chief Justice—that is, the Chief Justice of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court—who is appointed by the Queen, not on the advice of the Premier of this or of any other of the Associated States, on the advice, I believe, of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and the person appointed is a completely independent legal person with no obligations to the Government other than to do his duty fairly. The tribunal made its start with the review on 8th July, and the sooner its results are known the better.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks referred to the possibilities of invasion in Anguilla, or, rather, of armed troops or soldiers or police going in, in which case a great deal of blood could well be shed. There have been references to reports in the Press of arms for the Government being flown in secret into St. Kitts and of boasts by the Anguillans about the extent to which they are armed. I cannot comment on these reports today, and I do not think that it would in any way help the efforts which have been


made during the week by the Commonwealth ministerial mission in Barbados to find a different kind of solution. I join with the hon. Gentleman in paying high tribute to the Governments who have co-operated in seeking a solution, for, clearly, a Caribbean conscience has been created. A sense of responsibility for what happens to any single member of that community is evident and is welcome, and I believe that it will stand the Caribbean in good stead.
I turn now to what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton had to say about his constituent, Mr. Gaskell. Although a hard opponent, the right hon. Gentleman is usually fair, but I thought that he did less than justice to this side of the House and to our representative out there when he said that we were doing nothing to help Mr. Gaskell. This is not true. Mr. Gaskell was arrested on 11th June. The British Government's representative made inquiries on 12th June to discover whether any United Kingdom person was involved in the detentions. He was informed of Mr. Gaskell's arrest and detention.
By 13th June, he had reported to London that Mr. Gaskell's lawyer had seen him. By 15th June, he reported having spoken to Mr. Gaskell's lawyer, who was fully satisfied with Mr. Gaskell's physical treatment. The hearing of Mr. Gaskell's habeas corpus application has been concluded. In his telegram today, my noble Friend tells me that Mr. Justice Glasgow has not yet delivered his decision, but we hope that it will not be long delayed.
I can inform the House that the preliminary hearing of the shooting charge against Dr. Herbert and five others arising out of the events of 10th June ended on 19th July, when the magistrate, Mr. Laroque-Jones, committed Herbert, Michael Harrigan, Todville Harrigan, Churchill Smith, Francisco Browne and Vincent Williams to stand trial at the next criminal assizes. The date of the assizes has not yet been fixed, but the St. Kitts Government hope that it will he expedited.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks spoke of the Anguillans as a proud, hardworking people. He paid them high tribute, and I join with him. But, now that my noble Friend is meeting the Commonwealth Mission which is there,

and while conversations are under way in an effort to find a peaceful solution to this unhappy problem, I feel that we would be unwise in this House to pursue the matter and, perhaps, exacerbate feeling, making it more difficult for those who are at this very moment, while we are here debating the matter, engaged in trying to find a solution. We must hope and pray that they will be successful.

2.25 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: We all share the Minister's hopes that the noble Lord Lord Shepherd and the Commonwealth Mission will be successful in finding a solution for all these difficulties, but I confess to having found the hon. Gentleman's speech most disappointing. He gave a detailed account of how the emergency resolution had in his view, apparently, been legally promulgated, but there seemed to be no word of censure on anyone for the events which have led to this disastrous situation in which the whole of the Opposition, virtually, and a British subject are illegally detained in gaol. I had hoped to hear a word of condemnation.
I am not as acquainted as others of my right hon. and hon. Friends are with the full details of these events. I have risen to speak because Mr. Bradshaw is an old friend of mine and has been for 14 years. I visited St. Kitts in 1953 on a Parliamentary delegation, with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). I first knew Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. South-well then. I remember that we were greeted at the airport by Mr. Bradshaw. He was driving a large American car and wearing a fez. Perhaps there is nothing in this. He is a flamboyant figure. Even the Leader of the Liberal Party wears a brown bowler hat on occasions.
There were other aspects of our meetings. I remember one incident on that visit when we were being driven into Basseterre for the dinner given for us by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We were fetched by Mr. Bradshaw in his large American car from the house of the Administrator. I should explain that the Administrator and Mr. Bradshaw were not, and had not been for months, on speaking terms, which made the situation a little difficult and tense from our point of view.
As we were driving into Basseterre, we had a puncture. We got out of the car,


and Mr. Bradshaw turned to some youths standing by and said, "Change the wheel". I did not feel that I would have got away with that in my own constituency. The next thing that happened was that another car came along, and it was commandeered to take us to the dinner.
I thought that these were, perhaps, the ways of flamboyant politicians of the Caribbean. I got to know Mr. Bradshaw very well in subsequent years. I knew him when he was the Finance Minister of the Federation, I have met him at Commonwealth Parliamentary Conferences, and I have met him over here. He showed, as so many of the Caribbean leaders have done, very great maturity and wisdom. I think that he was the best of the Federal Ministers in the short-lived Federal Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who knows Mr. Bradshaw as well as I do, would pay tribute to Mr. Bradshaw as having been a most co-operative Minister, co-operative with the Colonial Office in his day.
I do not understand the sea-change which has come over Mr. Bradshaw since he went back to politics in his own island and since the arrival of this hybrid invention of Associated Status. I do not know what part Mr. Southwell, whom I know well also and have met on many occasions, has played in all these events. It is my impression—I put it as understated as I can—that there is prima facie evidence of very considerable disruption of democratic and legal processes in the island.

Mr. George Thomas: Perhaps I did not make clear in my speech that we have made the strongest protests about our people who are being held without charge. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to say that now, as it is in harmony with the point he is on.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
But I think it goes further than that, and I shall have something more to say about the rôle of Her Majesty's Government here in this matter. It is distressing and disheartening to all those of us who have affection for the West Indies and have pinned our faith on the hope that they will become a country which will follow

in our political traditions to find that it is these British islands that are going to repeat the pattern of Haiti. All one's faiths have been so dashed by these events. I do not want to sound patronising, but I think many of us have been pleasantly surprised by the way in which the other West Indian territories have shown political maturity. St. Kitts seems to be the one sole exception.
I still believe that this country has got a moral responsibility for what is going on in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and we cannot just wash our hands of the situation. We are still responsible for their defence and their foreign affairs. Above all they are grant aided. I cannot feel that it is right for us to use the taxpayers' money to support tyrannous and unconstitutional régime. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir. J. Rodgers) gave the figure of £279,000 or thereabouts. But that was grant in aid for the expenses of administration alone, and there is a difference between colonial and welfare development and grants in aid. I would not for one moment suggest cutting off any project which comes under colonial development and welfare, but a grant in aid is different. If the legal system is being distorted, if the police are acting ultra vires, we are contributing to this. I feel, therefore, that a point must come, if we cannot get these matters rightly settled, when we must call a halt to that grant in aid, though I hope, none the less, that it will not come to that. I wonder whether perhaps the Minister of State would consider sending a signal to Lord Shepherd asking him to say to Mr. Bradshaw that some of his friends still hope that he will justify the confidence which they had in him in the past.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: This is not the first time a number of us have had sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State. On this occasion he has taken over, as I said earlier, a baby which has been nurtured for the last five months by the hon. Lady who is now the Minister of Social Security. I think he is probably finding it a very awkward baby, but I think, as I shall show in a moment—for I do not want to keep the House


more than a few moments—that he shares some responsibility for the past.
I think the great mistake that was made was that local councils were not set up before associated status was granted to these islands. We on this side of the House, naturally, did not want to delay associated status. We were given firm undertakings that the development of local government would take place, and for that reason we did not press for a stay of this date, but it became evident very shortly after that the complacency of various members of Her Majesty's Government here was literally horrifying. They seemed to be lighthearted—I might almost say, lightheaded—about it. We had statements from the hon. Lady—in several letters to me; on occasions we have had Questions in the House and statements then; we have the statement by the Minister of Overseas Development when he returned from his slightly awkward visit to the islands; and we have had the statement more recently of the hon. Gentleman himself.
Now, although we are concerned over what has happened in the past, which, I believe, is wholly unfortunate, and for which, I believe, Her Majesty's Government here bear a heavy load of responsibility; we are also concerned about the future.
I apologise for asking the hon. Gentleman another question, but I want to be quite clear about this declaration of emergency which he told us had been approved by the necessary two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly. I understand that this is indefinite, as long as the two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly is prepared to renew it.
The second point I would put to him is in the particularly of Mr. Milne-Gaskell raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. R. H. Turton), that the Government will show that they are not lacking in giving all the help they possibly can to him and to see that he is brought to trial or released without delay.
Thirdly, will the hon. Gentleman take steps in the near future, even though the House will be in Recess—for, no doubt, opportunities will be open to him —to make public the results of his noble Friend's visit to the West Indies, and give us an assurance that this very unfortunate situation in the Islands will soon be resolved? Lastly, I should like again to make the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks quite rightly drew our attention. It is not only very tragic in itself, but it is very tragic to all who have great affection, as I think most of us do, for the West Indies as a whole, because I think that if this is allowed to continue it will do great damage to the West Indies. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take steps, even during the Recess, to let us know the results of Lord Shepherd's mission, and I hope that it will be successful.

Mr. George Thomas: With the permission of the House I will answer very briefly. I know about the time and I shall be quick. The state of emergency will remain till the proclamation is withdrawn. I share the sense of outrage that people are held without trial. Of course we will show the utmost sense of urgency. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the possibility of publicity about the visit which my noble Friend is now paying.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not forget that we also have a responsibility for all the ordinary West Indian people who do not happen to be citizens of the United Kingdom, where, as a result of the Constitution which this House has granted, they are subject to misrule and increasing measures of dictatorship. I hope that that side of it will not be forgotten.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate has gone on nearly 20 minutes beyond the time I allocated for it. We must move on.

TOURIST TRADE (HOTELS)

2.38 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: In drawing attention to tourism and the shortage of hotels I would point out to the Minister who will be replying to the debate that, though it is stated on the Paper that I am referring to Great Britain, for I used that as a shorthand, I mean the United Kingdom, because, of course, there is a vast opportunity for tourism in Northern Ireland.
I do not think it is generally appreciated that tourism is our fourth largest export industry, and one which has grown enormously—by 40 per cent., in fact—over the last five years. It is of even greater importance than many of our traditional export industries, because it doth not rely on the import of raw materials for the end product to be exported. I suppose that wine is about the only commodity we have to import to serve to the tourists.
Furthermore, the tourist industry is our largest earner of dollars. Tourism must not only be regarded as of benefit to the country generally—and the few figures which I have quoted will substantiate that—because it has possibilities of helping constituencies which, at first sight, may not be thought to be tourist centres.
My own constituency is in the heart of Northamptonshire, right in the centre of England. At first sight, it does not appear to be one of the great tourist centres. In fact, one guide book emphasises, as if it were an attraction, that Northants is the only English county which has nine other counties bordering on it. But it must not be forgotten that, in this heart of England, there are some of the loveliest pieces of English countryside, with beautiful farmland, parkland and villages. There are 69 villages in my constituency, and nearly every one of them has a fine church. One of them is the oldest Saxon church in the country, dating back to the seventh century. It has two distinctions: it has been described by one authority as the most imposing memorial to the seventh century to be found north of the Alps, and it is the only Saxon church in my constituency round which excavations have been made by the present Deputy Speaker.
If tourists want castles, at the northern end of my constituency, overlooking the Welland Valley there is Rockingham Castle. It was fortified before the Norman Conquest, and the castle was begun by William. In Corby one can see a characteristically modern British achievement in the shape of a New Town planned round a modern efficient steel industry, as well as a truly remarkable old village church dating back to the twelfth century.
We are well equipped with hotels, whether they be modernised coaching inns such as the George at Kettering, or new, modern hotels like the Strathclyde at Corby. In these respects, we are like many places in the provinces and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even at this time of the year, we have accommodation.
It is London which is the problem. The British Travel Association calculates that, if tourism follows the present trend, in only three years' time we shall be short of 40,000 beds, chiefly in the London area. Either we build hotels and accept the 5 million tourists who are forecast to be coming at that time, or we sit back and watch the extra 2 million—we have 3 million tourists a year now—going to those countries in Europe which are building hotels.
I have mentioned that the forecast shows an increase of 2 million tourists in the next few years. However, we should think of tourism not only in terms of numbers but in the pattern of it. The huge new jumbo-jets will revolutionise tourism. We must not forget that air travel becomes relatively cheaper every year, and, as it becomes cheaper, more people of medium income will travel.
Another point to bear in mind is that increasing numbers will travel in large groups. It is much easier for a travel agent in Chicago, for example, to organise a tour and send it to those towns in Europe where he knows that there is hotel accommodation, than it is to spend his energies trying to find hotel rooms in groups of 10 here and 10 there in a city like London.
From May to October, hotel beds in London are 70 per cent. occupied. In July, the figure rises to one which


is almost unbelievable. This month, 86 per cent. of hotel beds in London and the London area are occupied. It is estimated that 40 per cent. of those staying in London between May and October come from overseas.
The problem can be stated simply. Either we build more hotels, especially in London where tourists want to come and where there is the greatest shortage, or we shall lose to our continental neighbours the opportunity of taking a large share in this expanded tourism.
Although traditionally we do not have the reputation of being great hoteliers, foreigners seem to like coming here, as the figures show. Since the war, preparation of food in this country has improved enormously. All of us who have had experience as consumers before the war and today will say that. Although our service is not always as good as it could be, I know at least one foreigner who found it quaint when he asked a maid what time the dining room was open and was told, "At meal times, Sir".
People travel for the differences. There is the language problem as well. I read of an Englishman who was fascinated yet appalled by what appeared to be inefficiency because, at all French hotels, whenever he turned on a bath tap marked with the letter "C", out came hot water. Obviously every tourist has problems, but most of them like to find things a little different. This is very easy in terms of food, but it also comes with different hours for meals. Not everyone wants to dine at 10.30 at night as they do in most parts of Spain. I found it interesting, as a visitor in New York staying in a large hotel, to experience extreme difficulty in persuading the cashier to accept United States dollars in payment of my hotel bill. Her system was geared entirely to dealing with credit cards. However, she fumbled in her handbag and produced some change, accepting my apologies for tendering cash in such a quaint old-fashioned way.
What should the Government do about tourism and the provision of hotels? First, we must get all agencies involved in tourism to suggest to overseas tourists that they should go to places outside the London area. I see hon. Members present in the Chamber who represent characteristically tourist areas, but, although I am sure the Minister would

not claim that Huddersfield is a natural tourist centre, certainly the Kettering area of Northants is. There is accommodation available outside London even in the month of July.
Second, I would make the point to the hon. Gentleman that nothing but more hotels can solve the problem of the shortage in London, and I find no signs that the position is improving.
The British Hotels and Restaurants Association argues for assistance in capital allowances, export incentives, credit guarantees, the Selective Employment Tax and investment incentives. I shall pick out one or two of those, though not all of them, because I hope that other hon. Members will intervene in the debate and make it a widely based one.
Because of the capital allowances provided over the last few years there has been a good deal of modernisation in our hotels, but the hotels complain—and I think that they have every right to do so—that they are not fairly treated in respect of the depreciation of buildings. They complain—and I agree with them —that as there is no building obsolescence allowance, they cannot easily set aside reserves for replacements or extensions. Without asking for the moon, they are saying that they should be recognised as an industry, like any other industry—and in this case it is an export one—and be treated like them and have the same capital allowances. This is not a wild ridiculous cry for enormous subsidies.
I come next to the question of credit guarantees, and what I have to say is no more than a suggestion. Working overseas, I have seen how our exports have been helped by the credit guarantee system. Remarkable help has been given to our export industries, and if the Government recognise that tourism is our fourth greatest export industry, they must be prepared at least to consider a scheme for a form of credit guarantee which will enable hotels to embark on improvement schemes.
My third point concerns the S.E.T. I am not against this tax, and I am not here to argue about it, but it does not seem to make the slightest bit of sense in relation to the hotel industry. This industry starts with a terrible shortage of staff. The best figure that I can


get is that at times it is about 20 per cent. short of staff. Another criticism that I have of the S.E.T. is that it gives an excuse to the lazy, unenterprising hotelier to lie back and groan about the S.E.T., but do nothing. It is so easy to get sympathy when talking about this tax.
When I dug into the Government's hotel loan scheme, I was depressed to find that its terms were regarded by the British Hotels and Restaurants Association as less generous than those offered by most banks. I was very surprised to be told that the Government's scheme had been worked out without consultation with the hotel industry or the trade association. The Government do not have to accept what the industry, or the trade association, wants—to do so would be a denial of government— but consultation and working out what sort of scheme is needed seems to me to be essential, and I hope that the Minister will deal with this point when he replies.
I want in the few minutes remaining to me to draw attention to the last two issues of British Travel News, the admirable publication put out by the British Travel Association. I do not intend to refer in detail to the latest summer issue, although it carries a charming picture of the Minister and Miss Mollie Ang, Miss Singapore, but to refer instead to the spring issue.
On page 31 the association refers to certain basic requirements for the development of tourism. Under the heading, "Reception of Visitors" it says:
The recommendation of the United Nations Conference on International Travel and Tourism … should be implemented as far as is practicable. There is a strong case for Customs examinations on a sampling basis, without the personal interview with every traveller.
Surely this is so? If hordes of people come through Customs, it is essential to be selective and work on a sampling basis.
Under the heading, "Accommodation and Catering" the association refers to the need
both in London and elsewhere in Britain, of good standard accommodation suitable for the tourist of more moderate means.
The Minister will remember that earlier in my speech I referred to the fact that with travel becoming relatively cheaper

we would have to cater for lower income groups who were not looking for the Hilton, but wanted to stay at reasonable, standard accommodation.
Under the heading, "Transport", the association refers to a problem which exists not only in London, but it arises more in this City because nearly everyone who comes to this country passes through here. It is due to the way in which our history and geography have shaped us. I am referring to this nonsense about the taxi service from London Airport to the centre of the City. Because the airport is more than six miles away, there is all this bargaining about fares, and I suppose it is true to say that hundreds of foreign visitors get into a dispute with our taxi drivers. This is quite unnecessary, because our taxi drivers are really reasonable people.
Under the heading, "Extension of the Holiday Season", there is a reference to the fixing of the August Bank Holiday at the end of August. It is probably over ten years since I raised this matter in the House. It is now an experiment, and I hope that we will continue it to spread out the holidays.
The Association also suggests that the Government should encourage the building of a conference centre in London, and it also suggests that more national parks should be provided in the countryside.
If the Government bestir themselves, they have a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the coming boom in tourism, because people want to come here. It is as simple as that. We have a great deal to offer, and as English becomes more and more a world language, Britain will become more attractive to the new generation of tourists who place language problems high on the list.
I regret the signs are that we are going to fail to capture this growing market. The principal sign is not only that we are failing to interest tourists in the attractions of the provinces, of Scotland, of Wales, and of Northern Ireland, but that we are not building enough hotels in London.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that this debate ends at 3.45 p.m. I would like to get in all the hon. Members from holiday resorts, and I can if hon. Members speak briefly.

2.58 p.m.

Lord Hamilton: I assure the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) and the Government that there is an acute shortage of hotel accommodation in Northern Ireland. Tourism is our fastest growing industry, with a revenue increase of 88 per cent. since 1960. As a result, demand has outstripped the available accommodation.
In 1966 tourist revenue amounted to £24½ million, with over one million visitors for the first time. This was achieved in spite of seamen's strike which hit the industry in Northern Ireland harder than in any other part of the United Kingdom. But the present position is only a prelude to what lies ahead, since the future potential is tremendous, not only for earning foreign currency, but for bringing much needed revenue to the more remote parts of Northern Ireland, and especially to specific areas in my constituency.
The attractions that we have to offer are an obvious and national magnet to an ever-increasing number of tourists. Again, with the population explosion in the United Kingdom, the advent of jumbo-jets in 1971, and the shorter working week, we have only scratched the surface of this great potential, which we are determined to develop.
At the same time, we are equally determined not to ruin our natural assets. To cater for this increase in the number of tourists we urgently need more hotel accommodation. A recent report by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board stressed the urgent need of providing at least 1,000 more hotel bedrooms if we are to partake of the benefits flowing from this tourist expansion. At the present time the morale of hoteliers, instead of being buoyant at the prospect of increased tourism, is literally at zero, for whereas other countries regard tourism as an industry we have moved in the opposite direction, through the savage imposition of the Selective Employment Tax and the removal of investment allowances.
These developments have had an extremely damaging effect, and is exasperating to the industry, since it is constantly reminded of the increased assistance given by foreign Governments to their respective hotel industries. It must also

be remembered that tourism has literally revolutionised the economy of many European countries.
It is a fundamental mistake that the regional employment premium scheme has not been extended to include tourism, for it is in the regions of the United Kingdom that the future growth of tourism lies. It is a potential which will lie dormant unless the Government take action to remedy the existing position.
There is no excuse for this discrimination against the tourist industry. Its expansion would in no way damage our balance of payments position. On the contrary, it is not only the creator of considerable employment; but it is the earner of much foreign currency. Tourism is our biggest dollar earner.
Where is tourism without proper hotel accommodation? During 1964 Northern Ireland earned £675,000 through attracting overseas visitors. This figure has been considerably increased since that date. Last year there were 75,000 overseas visitors, compared with 45,000 in 1963. Unless we are able to provide the necessary accommodation for more tourists not only shall we lose this increase in the number of tourists; we shall lose those people who would otherwise go abroad for their holidays, thus aggravating the balance of payments problem yet further.
As the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has already said, tourism must be regarded and treated as an industry on a par with manufacturing industry. That is particularly applicable to the regions of the United Kingdom.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: The hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has done a service to the House in bringing this matter before us this afternoon. He has made it clear that not only holiday resorts but nearly every constituency to some extent earns its living from tourism or hotels. I want to mention the other side of the coin, namely, the saving that accrues to this country from internal tourism—that which is indulged in by those who do not go abroad. That saves us a considerable sum of money. Typically preeminent in respect of hotels is the town,


part of which I have the honour to represent—Blackpool. The hotels and boarding houses of Blackpool take in millions of people every year. In a society of growing affluence—albeit growing more slowly than we might wish—with a greater desire for holidays, many people might decide to go to the Costa Brava rather than our seaside resorts, so it is important that our hotels and boarding houses have the standard of modern amenities which people demand.
Blackpool, with its fine holiday and conference facilities, has its share of overseas visitors, and more people are staying there in the winter, but it is preeminently for home tourists. Such towns need modernisation, which needs money. Internal changes in hotels should be allowable against tax. If an old-fashioned Victorian hotel wants sufficient bathrooms to give 20th-century visitors a comfortable stay, this should be allowed. Nothing would give older hotels a better boost.
Depreciation, of course, is vital. An hotel, which, in these changing times, can have only a short up-to-date life, should be allowed to put away a certain sum—perhaps 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. a year —as industrial buildings do, for depreciation and refurbishing for future needs. Hotel building is inhibited. Blackpool has had practically no new hotel building since the war and it cannot be right that, when the market exists, hotels cannot be built and an adequate profit made.
I echo what has been said about the Selective Employment Tax. About 30 per cent. of the cost of running an hotel is labour costs, not just during working hours but 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is estimated that the S.E.T. is adding about 10 per cent. to these major costs. The Government seem to be moving towards selectivity, and if ever there were a case for it, it is the hotel industry, which should be excused the S.E.T.
One of the most important practical steps which the Government could take to help the industry is to fix Easter. It is nonsense that, although the new spring holiday will be all right these next two years because it falls at Whitsun, when the religious holiday and the spring holiday are separate there is nothing but chaos for Blackpool and many other holiday towns. Therefore, I hope that the

Government will have a new look at this industry, which is one of the areas in which they can save a great deal of money.

3.10 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: In the tradition of the House, I declare an interest in that I am a director of an hotel company in this country and a director of an hotel company overseas. I am also Vice-Chairman of the all-party Tourist Resorts Committee, and it is in that capacity that I speak today. It is a great temptation to do a commercial for my constituency, but I know that you wish speeches to be short, Mr. Speaker, and in any case my constituency is so well known that it needs no commercials.
When we compare the treatment of hotel companies in this country with the treatment of hotel companies on the Continent and elsewhere, it is not difficult to see why our hotel industry is not meeting the demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to the Selective Employment Tax and other important factors, which I will not repeat. I want to refer to the value of tourism to the country and to what the Government and hon. Members can do to help.
First, I draw the attention of hon. Members who are present and those who read HANSARD to the existence of the Tourist Resorts Committee. I wish that more of them would attend. We have meetings once a month, and those hon. Members who represent tourist constituencies usually attend. I speak on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee, who unfortunately cannot be here, when I urge other hon. Members to attend more frequently. I thank the Minister of State for the interest which he has shown in the Committee. He has always been willing to attend and at least to listen to our complaints—and that applies to Ministers of both parties. But we could help the Minister and the House more if more hon. Members attend to put their point of view.
The organisation inside the Government for the tourist industry is by no means straightforward. Although the Minister of State is responsible for tourism, he has no power over planning permission for caravan sites—which are becoming an important factor in the tourist industry. The Minister of Housing


and Local Government in responsible for giving those planning permissions. The Minister of Public Building and Works is responsible for building licences. The Minister of Transport is responsible for transport to the resorts.
On 15th June the Committee wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject and an acknowledgment was received this morning. The all-party Tourist Resorts Committee suggested to the Prime Minister, among other things, that it was unanimously of the view that a Select Committee would prove to be a most effective instrument to examine the various aspects of tourism. Our suggestion is that the House should set up a Select Committee which could service the Ministry and the tourist industry with the same powers as an Estimates Committee.
One of the problems is to get amenities in the towns. We have been improving immensely the hotel accommodation and the service given by hotels. I do not think that the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) did the hotel industry full credit for the improvements which have taken place since the war. One problem is the English weather. We have had three weeks of particularly good weather, but many of us worry as we leave the House today whether the weather will break. Hoteliers need more facilities for visitors during wet weather.
When I read only today that the "Queen Mary" had been bought by a group in sunny California as a holiday attraction, I immediately thought, "Why should not the 'Queen Elizabeth' be put in one of the Scottish Lochs? "Would it be possible for an investment grant to be given to a Scottish burgh or to a private individual if they were prepared to put the "Queen Elizabeth" in a loch? It would be a wet weather facility. The House should be given powers to set up this Select Committee to examine these matters.

3.15 p.m.

Sir William Teeling: Some people consider that I am the Member for the Pavilion division of Brighton, but others believe that I am a Member for London-by-the-Sea. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas)—and I thank him for bringing up this subject—referred to the London hotels and their

problems. My town of Brighton is, with the new railway arrangements, only 50 minutes away at the most from London. It is a place where we now have, thanks to the enterprise of a gentleman called Mr. Poster, who has spent over a million pounds, several good hotels, including that in which the hon. Gentleman stayed recently, the Metropole.
We now have smaller hotels which have initiated "gastronomic" fortnights, with tremendous meals to attract people. All these things are done at places a very reasonable distance from London, and in the congested period of the year they are just the sort of places where people who want to go to the Savoy or the Dorchester would be equally happy to go.
The cost of the train fare is always considerable and increasing. When one goes to Switzerland one receives a tourist ticket, and the tourist rate is taken off the ordinary fare. Perhaps the Ministry of Transport and the Railway Boards could be consulted as to the possibility of some similar arrangement here, whereby overseas visitors could travel from these nearby areas to London at a cheaper rate. We have many conferences, international and otherwise, going on now in London and places like Brighton and this suggestion would assist those travelling to them.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to S.E.T. and the Bank Holidays. There has been a considerable pressure upon us in Brighton to ask the Minister responsible to look into the question of having a fixed Bank Holiday at a period shortly after a religious holiday which varies. I refer to Easter and Whitsun. This year the system has meant that the Whitsun Bank Holiday came about a fortnight later than otherwise. This meant that one had to keep staff employed over too long a period and the small hotel-keepers cannot afford this. I have put down a great many Parliamentary Questions asking whether we could link a fixed religious holiday with the other or, if that were not possible, have the present fixed holiday so many weeks after the religious holiday. It might be possible to do that.
I believe that this is the first tourist debate we have had since the death of a very great man connected with the tourist


world—Sir Arthur Morse, head of the British Travel Association. He did more than most for the improvement of hotel life and to make things easier for people coming from abroad. He gained international respect.
When Sir Arthur was appointed by the then President of the Board of Trade, no salary was attached to his job, nor did he receive any salary throughout his period of office. Following his retirement, someone had to be found who had a similar sort of position in life. Sir Arthur had been a former head of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank and was a man of considerable importance in the business world. When he retired he was only too glad to have something to keep him busy. Is the Board of Trade still faced with the great difficulty of finding someone rich enough to take on, without salary, a job which brings in an immense amount of money for the country? Everything possible should be done to find either a retired business man or active business man who could switch over to this job without the handicap of no salary to offer.
Only the other day, when wandering through Sussex I attended a presentation of the Queen's export award—the Queen's Award, I think it is called—which goes to people who are doing very good work in the export trade. Officially, the hotel and tourist business is not regarded as an export, but we get a tremendous amount of foreign money from it. Could not the terms of reference of the present award be extended to include this business? If not, might we not have some other Royal award to show that we are doing very good work for the country?

3.22 p.m.

Sir Neill Cooper-Key: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) on raising this important matter. Many of us have spoken on the subject over the years. It is no exaggeration to say that the British tourist and hotel industries have been quite disgracefully neglected by the Board of Trade ever since the war. We are one of the largest dollar earners—

Sir G. de Freitas: The largest.

Sir N. Cooper-Key: Yes, the largest—but when we compare the assistance we

get from the Board of Trade with what our European competitors get from their administrations it will be seen that we fall very far short of what is necessary for the modernisation of our hotels. It must be remembered that we are in very strict and desperate competition with Europeans, who are in the same boat as we are in endeavouring to bridge the balance-of-payments gap. It is a matter of the greatest urgency that the Board of Trade should do something to assist our hotels.
Over a number of years many hon. Members from both sides of the House have served on the Parliamentarian's Tourist Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) referred to the good work which the Committee is doing. We have pressed for
relief from Purchase Tax on the tools of our trade, for capital allowances for our buildings, as for industrial buildings, for agreement that alterations within the four walls of the existing premises can be chargeable to revenue instead of capital and for loans for work such as the installation of central heating and private bathrooms.
We have received very little consideration from the Board of Trade on these urgent requests.
On a narrower aspect, the economy of many towns and resorts is based on providing holiday accommodation and amenities. The prosperity and economic growth of areas such as my constituency of Hastings are directly affected by the number of beds which are available. I know for a certainty that in Hastings the number of beds available for visitors has been considerably reduced since the war because there has been no incentive to owners of hotels to bring their accommodation up to date. Not only for holidays but also for conferences, and business journeys to these resorts it is important not to lose sight of the need that our internal and domestic requirements should be kept up to date in hotel services.
Hon. Members have mentioned the Selective Employment Tax which will cause a great deal of detriment to the progress of the industry. The Government loan scheme is no use at all to small hotels, certainly not the sort of hotels there are on the south coast in resorts such as Hastings and Eastbourne. I hope that the Minister of State will


suggest some constructive lines on which the Board of Trade will examine the problem and will give the House satisfaction that the Department is aware of the need for an up-to-date tourist industry and particularly for facilities to modernise and keep modern hotel facilities.

3.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for raising this subject and I thank hon. Members for the way in which they have spoken about it. The names of their constituencies form a kind of panorama or kaleidoscope of all that is attractive in these islands —Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Blackpool, Folkestone, Hastings, Brighton, Pavilion—and Plymouth might also have been included.
I begin by taking up two specific points, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) about fixing Bank Holidays. This House has had power to fix the Easter Bank Holiday since 1928, but it has not got round to doinig so yet. The trouble is not our laziness so much as the difficulties which the Christian churches have on occasion in reaching agreement. I think that discussion has gone on long enough. I shall put the representations which have been made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in whose province this matter comes.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) for his comments about Sir Arthur Morse. The hon. Member asked about the chairmanship of the B.T.A. It is still an unpaid job. We are very lucky to have so regularly the first-class men such as the present chairman, Lord Geddes, to do this job for nothing. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot expect this situation to continue for ever. We are considering it.
I reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) about attendance at the all-party Committee of which he is Vice-Chairman. It is an immensely valuable Committee, and it would be even more valuable if more hon. Members attended it. The hon. Gentleman rightly said

that he and his colleagues on the Committee have proposed to the Prime Minister that a Select Committee should examine the whole question of tourism. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not yet received a reply, but one is on the way.
Now that a great many proposals of subjects which Select Committees could investigate are before the authorities of the House, one difficulty is the shortage of Members to man them. There is also the difficulty of the shortage of staff to service them. I am interested in the suggestion and I have not the slightest doubt that the authorities will bear it in mind.
There are various complications about having a responsibility for tourism. There is a diversification of Government Departments and outside agencies. Because of this, and before there is any question of a Select Committee, we have set up an Inter-departmental Committee to examine the whole matter to see whether the Government machinery can be improved and co-ordinated. The British Travel Association has only recently produced some proposals, which are not yet published and which I am considering for various changes in the organisation outside Government to develop tourism. When I have had the chance to see these various reports and consider them with my colleagues, I shall be only too delighted if we can have an opportunity—not only with the all-party Committee, but in the House itself—to discuss the various suggestions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and all others who have spoken emphasised the importance of the tourist industry to Britain. The Government are well aware of it. Last year 4 million overseas visitors spent £219 million here. By 1970 we expect the number of visitors to have risen to at least 5 million. Therefore, in terms of overseas earnings alone this is important. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North that there are also the internal savings which his wonderful resort, amongst others, have contributed for many years.
Those who come from overseas do not all go into hotels. Some stay with friends or at boarding houses or go into bed and breakfast establishments. I am glad


to say that an increasing number of visitors come here to camp, or to go on caravan sites, or into youth hostels. I realise the importance of increasing such facilities as these. We have some good camping and caravan sites, but not so many and not always so good as those that can be found abroad. The Government are taking what steps they can to try to extend the number and improve the quality.
In spite of this development of camping, it is obvious that hotels are the real key to the tourist industry and that there is a shortage. My right hon. Friend quoted the figure of 40,000 extra hotel beds which would be needed by 1970. That was a B.T.A. estimate. Since then the Association has come down to an estimate of 30,000. What is disturbing is that the Association thinks that only about 20.000 will be provided, so that by 1970, on present trends, there may be quite an acute shortage. Incidentally, it is a curious fact that we do not know how many hotel beds we have got in this country. Nobody has ever made a proper survey. Samples have been taken but no survey has been made. I would have thought that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association might very well occupy themselves in making a survey of that kind.
Whatever the correct figure, the probability of a shortage is undeniable and, as my right hon. Friend has said, the shortage is not evenly spread through the country. I understand that there is a shortage in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, but the most acute shortage is likely to he here in London. One way of relieving that shortage which my hon. Friend and others have mentioned is to try to attract tourists away from London to other parts of the country. This is being done, and I think the speeches which have been made today are extremely helpful to that end. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering would have a very high place in any guide book about Northampton. The authorities in various parts of the country are now so much alive to the desirability of attracting tourists that they are promoting their own areas in a big way. In my own area of Yorkshire the Yorkshire Travel Association—if I may roll my logs too —is a very lively organisation indeed

and is doing splendid work in telling Scandinavians and others of the real beauties of the West Riding and other Ridings in Yorkshire. No doubt, the same sort of thing is being done by Brighton, Blackpool, East Anglia and other places.
However vigorous these campaigns may be, the fact remains that we must have more hotels. My right hon. Friend and others have suggested that both the present hoteliers and those who are contemplating building new hotels in the future are being discouraged by the fiscal policies of the Government, notably by S.E.T. and the withdrawal of the investment allowances. Hon. Members have put these points very forcibly, though a great deal more moderately than my ex-comrade Lord Shawcross, who used his position as the President of the British Hotels and Restaurants Association to make a sweeping and general attack on the Government, even bringing in homosexuality and abortion. I got the impression that he was much more concerned with working off spite on his ex-colleagues than he was with furthering the interests of the hotels he was purporting to represent.
The point about these fiscal measures is to try to concentrate help on those activities which produce the greatest return of foreign exchange and so help the balance of payments. It is perfectly true that the tourist industry as a whole and the hotels in particular help very much in the foreign exchange business, in the balance of payments, but the percentage of payments from overseas, expressed as a percentage of total turnover in the hotel and restaurant industry, is only 10 per cent. compared with 25 per cent. in manufacturing industry. Therefore, in the present difficulties of the balance of payments it seemed sense to concentrate help as much as possible in the manufacturing industries.
However, because of the realisation that the hotels are so important, the Government attempted to counteract any disappointment and discouragement arising from those measures by the hotel loan scheme. On this my right hon. Friend was a little critical, saying that he had been told that the terms were not as good as those which could be obtained from the banks. We have so far had 84 applications, to a total value of


£7,410,000, and loans totalling more than £1 million have been approved and are now on offer. I hope and expect that the whole amount will have been allocated by the end of the year.
This was an experimental scheme for one year. We are looking at it. We are talking about it with the trade interests. I must tell my hon. Friend that, before we adopted it, we discussed the scheme in great detail with the British Hotels and Restaurants Association. The meeting which I have particularly in mind was on 13th October, 1966, when the outline of the scheme was discussed with that organisation. If we decide to extend it or to make alterations, we shall do so in consultation with the interests con- cerned. We shall take account also of the Hotel and Catering Economic Development Council's appraisal of the return on investment in certain new hotel developments, which is due out in October.
On the general point that taxation at present is making hotel running or hotel building unprofitable, I call attention to the recently published summary of a survey in 1966 of the performance of over 100 hotels of all types and in most parts of the country. The survey was carried out on behalf of the University of Surrey. From this analysis, it emerges that the median profit of these hotels, the average of 50 per cent. of them, was 10 per cent. for the last year. For the tower quarter, the figure was only 4½8 per cent., but for the upper quarter the figure of profit was 17½2 per cent.

Mr. Costain: Is that on capital or turnover?

Mr. Mallalieu: That is on turnover. Further, recall to the House the Paper which Sir Geoffrey Crowther, who is one of the more knowledgeable men in the hotel trade, read fairly recently to the

London School of Economics. To take just one quotation, he said:
Given the gentle rate of continuing inflation, the building of new hotels, in the long run, shows a handsome rate of return on capital.
I am fortified by those two references in my belief that the prospects for the hotel trade are reasonably good.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of points and suggestions which are raised by the British Travel Association in its Annual Report. We have discussed these thoroughly with Lord Geddes and his executives, and we are doing whatever we can in the Board of Trade to put them into effect. My hon. Friend mentioned specifically the wretched business of taxis from Heathrow, and what-not. This has been carefully looked into, and I hope that a recommendation will come forward shortly. Nearly all the points have been discussed, and, where possible, they are being put into effect.
I end as I began, by thanking my hon. Friend for raising the subject in debate. It is one in which the House of Commons, rightly, takes a great interest. Having come only recently to the job, I have found myself intensely interested in it and, indeed, delighted by the work which outside organisations such as the B.T.A. which are doing a remarkably good job. I assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that, while in my present job, I shall do everything I possibly can to help and foster the tourist industry.

Sir W. Teeling: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the possibility of reduced rate tickets for overseas visitors. such as are available in Switzerland?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry that I did not mention that. I have made a note of it and I shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PLYNOUTH)

3.45 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: It was in my maiden speech that I first drew attention to the need to include Plymouth within the development area of the South-West, and it was in that same speech that I urged the Government to pay attention to the claim of Plymouth as a growth centre, round which the South-West could expand and prosper. At that time it could reasonably have been said that I was advocating a constituency case, that I was arguing, as we in this House are wont to do, a purely constituency point, though even at that time I argued my claim for Plymouth within the concept of the broader region and on the basis of prosperity in the South-West. I can now present the case of Plymouth to become a growth centre and to be included in the South-West development area fortified in the knowledge that I do not do so alone as their Member of Parliament but in the light of the Report, "Region with a Future" of the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council.
This Report is hailed as a draft strategy for the South-West and has been widely acclaimed. The Guardian described it as one of the best documents on the subject published so far, and said:
It feels the pulse of the region and prescribes some remedies".
The Report makes as one of its central recommendations that Plymouth should be included within the South-West development area. I would like to think that there are two major recommendations in that Report. The first is for a major spine road going down the South-Western peninsula. It would enhance the communications and would be of inestimable benefit not to Plymouth alone but to the entire region. The other recommendation is what I have said, that Plymouth should be included within the development area.
I should like to remind the House of some of the history of location policy and the whole policy of regional development. In 1934 we had the Special Areas Act, and it was the first time that the Government recognised their responsibility to encourage industry to go into the regions

and for taking responsibility for location policy. Since then we have seen a remarkable change in the attitude of central Government to regional economic planning and regional development, and it is with great pride that I have this opportunity for this debate at all, because it was the Labour Government that set up the regional economic planning councils. I can say this with all fairness, that the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council has been under great attack from many Members of Parliament.
I have been a firm and strong supporter of the concept of regional planning ever since it was first introduced. It was on this that I fought the General Election in 1964, and again in 1966, and I believe it was because of the Government's concrete proposals for regional planning that we returned three Labour Members of Parliament for the far South-West, something which had never occurred before. With the coming out of this Report, which has been very widely acclaimed by all political parties in the South-West, we now feel we have a draft strategy on which to work.
I ought to make it quite clear that when the economic planning councils were set up they were only advisory bodies. The Government made it quite clear, and rightly so, that though their recommendations would be considered and discussed by the Government, they were not in any sense binding. I quite realise this. We have to prove our case not just in the context of the South-West, but in a context embracing the whole of the nation, when we claim an extension of development areas. They have got to be balanced against the claims of other development areas all over the country. I fully realise this.
What I am worried about in the Government's regional proposals, all of which I support, and which are imaginative—the regional employment premiums, industrial incentives, the concept of wider development areas—is that we seem to have forgotten the great good which can come from concentrating on certain areas of specific growth centres. I do not for one moment accent the belief that the introduction of development areas means that we have to abolish the concept of growth centres. It seems wholly logical that, within the wider development area, there should be essential growth


centres. I believe that the Government are in danger of forgetting and forsaking the policy of growth centres. There is a danger that, within the wider development area, factories will be encouraged to set up branches in small villages and create structures which at times of general depression are liable to closure, giving rise to unemployment.
One of the basic principles set out in the new concept of development areas, elaborated by the President of the Board of Trade in January, 1966, was that we were going away from a concept which centred solely on high unemployment. Referring to the development areas, the President of the Board of Trade said that "the criteria for selecting them will be more flexible and no longer based purely on unemployment. This is an admirable trend which should be encouraged.
I admit that if the sole criterion for the designation of a development area for Plymouth was a rise in unemployment, we should have difficulty in proving our case. However, there is no doubt that unemployment in Plymouth is higher than in the rest of the country. Based on the latest figures which I have, the comparison is that Plymouth shows an unemployment rate of 3·2 per cent., Great Britain as a whole shows a rate of 2·3 per cent., the rest of Britain shows a rate of 1·6 per cent., and the difference is 1·6 per cent. There is a marked discrepancy. We are 1 per cent. above the national average at the moment, and there have been many occasions over past years when we have been a great deal higher.
In 1960, when Plymouth was declared a development district, it helped Plymouth's economy very considerably. It is a matter of great regret that, in the financial year 1961–62, the Tory Government decided that Plymouth could no longer be a development district.
I want to argue the case for Plymouth within the framework of the region as a whole. Unless we can show that there is a viable reason for bringing industry to Plymouth which will help the rest of the South-West and not just Plymouth, our case will tend to go by the board.
Of the five development areas which the Government have introduced, four have major industrial growth centres within their areas. In Scotland, there is

Glasgow, in the Northern Region we have Newcastle and Tyneside, in Merseyside we have Liverpool, and in the Welsh one there is Swansea, with strong pressure for Cardiff to be included.
Looking at the South-West, there is no single major industrial centre which could act as a growth centre, and this is a substantial omission. The development area was delineated deliberately to exclude Plymouth and, as a result, the South-West has been served poorly by the areas defined in January, 1966.
The South-West Regional Economic Planning Council has argued strongly that Plymouth's potential for growth is very considerable. To make one or two brief quotations from its Report,
The Council consider that any major effort to stimulate growth must start from Plymouth. Plymouth is the one town in the whole of this halt of the Region large enough to stand some comparison with urban centres elsewhere in the country which serve as foci for the economic and social life of the communities around them. It is vital that Plymouth should retain and attract population and enterprise if the whole area is to succeed in doing so.
That is very important. Plymouth's population has remained almost static and, though it has increased slightly recently, this is largely as the result of taking in some outlying districts.
We are extremely handicapped by our lack of communications, but the Report goes on to say:
Nevertheless, Plymouth has inherent potentialities for sound economic growth. Thanks to the Dockyard, there is well-organised technical training and the city's manpower possesses an enviable degree of technical skill. The city has already demonstrated that it is an attractive location for industry despite its remoteness, and the problems arising from the remoteness can. and should, be lessened in the future by the improved communications",
and particularly if we get the spine road.
Plymouth, with its large heavy industrial labour force in the repair dockyard, has the potential to support any major industry that might wish to come to us. Employment in Plymouth is made up broadly as follows: the extractive industries take 3,000, manufacturing establishments take 30,000, and the service and distributive trades take 60,000. We have only 30,000 in manufacturing establishments, and of this total the dockyard accounts for 19,000 men, one-fifth of the


total population employed, less than one-third of Plymouth's total male population. This is a significant proportion, and shows remarkable dependence on one industry.
There are more statistics which show the vulnerability of Plymouth in the long term. If we consider the total expanding industries, we see that the percentage in Great Britain is 76, in Cornwall it is 75·4, in Devon it is 75·1, and in Plymouth it is only 70·3. These figures are from an A.I.C. survey in March, 1965. The figure for total contracting industries in Great Britain is 23·9 per cent., in Cornwall 24·7 per cent., in Devon 24·8 per cent., and in Plymouth again the highest figure, 29·8 per cent. On both these parameters Plymouth has fewer expanding industries than the surrounding areas, and in Great Britain as a whole, and more contracting industries. The Government must concede the case that Plymouth's economy on these parameters is extremely vulnerable, and because Plymouth's prosperity is vulnerable, so is the whole of that of the far South-West, for it is to Plymouth, the main distributive centre, that most of Cornwall and the major portion of Devon look.
It is true that over the years much anxiety has been expressed in Plymouth about the Devonport Dockyard. I have always believed, and have expressed it forcefully at elections, and since I have been a Member of this House, that it is wholly wrong to make a political issue out of the dockyard. It is not only wrong, but irresponsible, and some of the statements which have been made by hon. Members opposite who represent South-West constituencies have caused me great concern over the last few months. They do themselves and the people of Plymouth a great disservice by constantly harping on the insecurity of employment in the dockyard. There is practically no other major employer who could guarantee employment to the extent that the Devonport Dockyard does at the present time. We have H.M.S. "Ark Royal" undergoing refit. H.M.S. "Tiger" is in for a refit, and another aircraft carrier, H.M.S. "Eagle" coming in for a refit. There is therefore a guarantee of work in the dockyard for the next four or five years, a span which no private enterprise could ever offer its employees.
I am not concerned about the immediate, or even the short-term, prospects of the dockyard. I am convinced that no sensible Government could ever, for regional economic planning reasons alone, consider any major change in the commitment of the Navy to Plymouth, and I am satisfied that no such change is even being contemplated. But it is true that we are reviewing the levels of the services, and this is done with my support. I have long felt that this country's world rôle needed to be reviewed, and I welcome the Defence White Paper which we debated yesterday. I strongly support its major recommendations.
Those who support the dockyard, and whose responsibility it is to look after the work prospects of their constituents, must be prepared to make the Government look beyond five, ten, or even 15 years. We have the right to ask the Government, of any political party, to make such provision and such contingency planning as will give our constituents the firm prospect of a viable prosperity and employment in the future. It is because Plymouth is so dependent on this major employer that I believe it to be vital that we should diversify our economy. This means that we must be able to attract industry.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

Dr. Owen: The essential point which I wish the Government to realise is that because of its traditional skills and heavy industry Plymouth can offer to any industry that may come in a potential for expansion and diversification that can be offered by no other city or town in the South-West Region. We hope that a thriving industrial centre can be built up.
Not many of us would want to see the whole of the South-West comprised of factories and major industrial centres. The area has great attributes and beauty. It has a thriving tourist industry which we do not wish to change. But we also have a responsibility to ensure that people living in this region can find employment. For many years now there have been high areas of employment in


certain pockets of the region. The Government, by making a development area of most of Cornwall and large areas of Devon, have done a great deal to help, and their emphasis on advance factories has been welcomed.
But the location of industry cannot be entirely dependent on changing the high unemployment rates which exist in localised areas; it must also depend upon creating a viable industrial structure, not only for that area or region but also for the national economy, because it has always been our case that regional economic planning, wisely carried out, adds to the growth prospects of the nation's economy. It is not a purely static approach that we are urging but a dynamic concept of modern economic management.
It is to this that I wish the Government to address their attention. There may come a time when it would be better to concentrate on the migration of labour. Certainly this is an important part of location policy. The emphasis that the Government place on the mobility of labour, the retraining of labour and the need for rehousing in specific areas shows that they are well aware of this, but I wish that they would realise that if the person who cannot find work in Cornwall wishes to move, at the moment he can go only to the Midlands or to the London area or to the South-East, adding to the already existing congestion.
It is true that many Government measures have provided employment, so that such a person can keep himself in Cornwall, but there comes a time when he has to move out of the area altogether. Depopulation has been a major problem in the South-West for many years.
How much more would such a person prefer to move to Plymouth and to bring up his family within the far South-West rather than to go completely outside the region. It is this concept of strategical regional planning in which a growth centre is a major attraction that I wish to recommend to the Government. If we deal with Plymouth not just as an industrial centre but as a large centre of population we can spread the benefits throughout the far South-West.
I am not speaking only for Plymouth; this is the central argument of the South-West Economic Planning Council's

Report. It has deliberately looked at this problem and has asked itself, "If Plymouth becomes a development area will it impair the employment prospects and the location of industry prospects for Cornwall and parts of North Devon?" Its conclusion is that it will not. For these reasons alone we can exclude the possibility that making Plymouth into a development area will harm the prospects of other local areas which often have much higher unemployment rates.
The other argument which I hope will not be used is that Plymouth is a grey area. I do not accept that and hope that it will not be one of the reasons for delaying the decision whether Plymouth should be incorporated in a development area until the publication of Sir Joseph Hunt's report. There are strong reasons for declaring Plymouth a development area, so as to lay the foundation for future economic prosperity, and these are in no way related to the grey areas or the impending report. There are other areas in the South West which I would call "green areas", with many similarities to the drab grey areas of the centre of the country.
These growth centres, talked about in the regional planning council's report, should be looked at, but Plymouth's case is quite distinct, depending on its innate vulnerability and dependence on one major industry and employer. Wages there are very low. Anyone visiting Plymouth will see it rebuilt on the ashes of the severe bombing of the Second World War, but should not be misled by these achievements. He will see a clean and apparently prosperous city, but behind the appearance are people on notoriously low wages from a very bad employer.
I am glad to see that the Government, acting on the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board, have increased the wages of the key industrial workers in the dockyard, but this is still not nearly enough. One reason that wages are so low is that there is no other industry to diversify its economy, and this is vital if the region is to prosper. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will also take part in this debate, because it is in no sense a party debate. All three major parties


are agreed that the recommendations of the Report should be implemented as soon as possible and we fervently hope that the Government will do so after due consideration.
There was a widespread misunderstanding in the South-West, arising from a fortuitous coincidence of replies, that the Government had declared that Plymouth should not be a development area, but the Minister of State has made it clear that the President of the Board of Trade will consider the Report's recommendations carefully. He knows, as we do, that this is the result of considerable effort over the years by people who have given up their time to develop what they call a strategy for the far South-West.
The Report says:
Plymouth, which historically has looked outwards across the oceans, must turn and look inwards towards the land.
The economic planning council has recommended that Plymouth has a responsibility to its region. This is one which Plymouth has always accepted. We ask the Government today to give us the opportunity to meet this challenge.

4.13 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth. Devon-port): I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on initiating this debate and on expressing himself so forcibly. I agree with him except on his acceptance of the Defence White Paper, which I cannot endorse.
There has been a considerable change since the Economic Council was set up. I remember leading a deputation from the then Socialist city council to the Minister of the day to protest against a previous report. but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that today both sides of the House and all West Country Members support its proposals for Plymouth's future. I was, therefore, a little disappointed when I put down a Question—it was not quite fortuitous. Incidentally—to receive a reply from the President of the Board of Trade that he was not convinced that any change was necessary in making Plymouth into a development area. The object of the debate is to convince him, as he can be convinced. Several things have happened since he replied to my Questions. For

instance, there is the Defence White Paper. Changes in the Royal Navy in the 1970s may affect Devonport, so this may enable the Minister to take a longer-term view of the situation.
I was also told that it was estimated by the firms concerned that they would provide 730 additional jobs when fully manned. What I wanted to know was what was meant by "when fully manned". Does it mean that the posts have not been taken up? It does not help us if we have the jobs but they are not fully manned.
I support the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton in saying that Plymouth does not want charity we want what we think is our due. He mentioned the Local Employment Act, 1959. As a result of that Act our unemployment figures fell from 4·9 per cent. below the national average, and that is why we were taken out of the Act. This we could do again, if we were even temporarily a development area. One of our main difficulties is our dependence on the service trades, for 18 per cent. of the employed people are employed in those trades. Were it not for the vast expense on the Selective Employment Tax we should be in a much better position: it is a pernicious tax that causes unemployment.
The previous debate was on tourism. About 35 million people take holidays in England and one in five of them previously went to Devon and Cornwall. We have had the difficulties of S.ET. and of the oil on the beaches, and it has made a difference this year to the number of visitors. I would emphasise that the beaches are quite clean. We should emphasise this all the time. However. I feel that this is the right moment to include Plymouth in a development area. The South-West is a small development area. We are on the very edge of such areas, and I am worried in case there is a drain of population to the other development areas. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry. East (Mr. Crossman) suggested that Plympton and Plymstock should be included in the Plymouth area he stated "in order to avoid a dying city". I should stress that Plymouth is not a dying city, but we have now extra population for whom we have to provide work.
There is a shortage of work, particularly for women and young people. The Report for the South-West suggests further office accommodation and perhaps industry provided in the area by Government Departments. One of the main difficulties is that young people have to go outside the area if they want other than manual jobs. We have a new population of younger people for whom work has to be found.
In a geographical magazine recently Plymouth was described as a Cinderella town. But, as has been said, the roads are gradually being improved and we hope that in the near future a decision will be made about the airport. We lost our airport as a result of the Harrowbeer Bill and this made difficulties in the area, but we got the Tamar Bridge which has been a great help in bringing people from Cornwall to Plymouth and enabling a number of people to travel from Cornwall over the river to work in Plymouth.
The docks, too, are worthy of consideration as they are working at half capacity. I also make a plea on behalf of the women in the area, because there is great under-employment among them. As far as I am aware, there are no retraining establishments. There is an excellent one for men at Plympton. A great many women marry much earlier now, and when their children have gone to school they would like to take up further work involving retraining. There is a great future for the South-West, and I am looking forward to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because I am sure that as usual he will be helpful.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers) will not misunderstand me if I say that it would have been better if this debate had taken place at a different time. It would have been better, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, if the debate could have had a wider setting. Neither hon. Member has suggested that we should talk only about Plymouth, but to discuss the whole of the strategy of the

South-West requires far more time than we can give today.
May I take up the last point raised by the hon. Lady, and suggest that she ought not to press this proposal that heavy road traffic ought to be banned at weekends. It would not be an inducement to bring industrialists to the area.
Both hon. Members have put forward the claim for Plymouth to be designated a development area, with all the financial benefits and inducements to attract industrial expansion which development area status would provide.
They have based their claim not only on the employment situation, but on strong arguments of regional planning. I want to follow the line that both hon. Members have taken to begin with, to try to put the needs of Plymouth for new industries and the expansion of the city's existing industries, first of all in the very difficult national setting, which any Government has to take into consideration and then, briefly, in the regional setting.
You may recollect, Mr. Speaker, although I have only very vague and confused memories, the number of Adjournment debates and other debates that I have attempted to answer over the last few years on claims put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the extension of the development area status to their constituencies. Because the request that Plymouth should be a development area just about completes the coastline, I should like to mention that the first debate of this kind that I had to answer was the request that Bridlington should be given development area status.
Since then we have gone all the way down the east coast, taking in the whole of Humberside, down to East Anglia and the Medway towns, Sheerness and Dover. Now we have come right round the south coast, with partiular emphasis on places such as Weymouth and Plymouth. Then we went up the Bristol Channel to Barrow and Severnside, and further north to Blackpool, Fleetwood, and Morecambe, right up to the Northern development area boundary.
In many cases the arguments put forward included the perfectly genuine point put forward by my right hon. Friend, that


many of these places could be growth centres. It will be understood, however, that although these coastal towns have peculiar employment problems, it would be impossible to designate the whole of the coastal area of the country as a development area. It would be awfully difficult to get any order of priorities if we tried to solve the problems of the coastal areas by giving them development area status.
We also have to take into account the fact that there are other places outside development areas, away from the coast, with problems far more serious than those in any of the coastal towns, including Plymouth. There is the problem of what are now called the "grey" areas, though I certainly agree that we could not include Plymouth in the grey area problem. I am, of course, referring to the older industrial areas where the traditional industries are rapidly declining—not dying out. Because of rationalisation and other causes they need far fewer workers now than they did even ten or fifteen years ago.
For instance, in the last fifteen years the cotton industry has lost over 200,000 jobs and one can understand the problems that that creates in Lancashire and in towns not one-tenth as attractive to new industry as Plymouth is. More than 100,000 men have left the coal industry, and 100,000 jobs have been lost on the railways. There are fewer jobs in shipbuilding and in iron and steel. These are the industries, and the areas in which they are situated, which have thrown up serious problems of redeployment of labour which we must urgently tackle, and are tackling.
Special measures are needed in these cases but, over and above the problem of local employment outside the development areas, we have to face the deep-rooted problems of the development areas themselves. There cannot possibly at this stage be any relaxing of the special inducements needed to bring about the industrial regeneration of the development areas, nor can we spread the inducements of the development areas in such a way that we frustrate the attractiveness of the inducements for the development areas themselves.
What we can do, what we are doing and what we intend to continue to do is

to pursue a very liberal policy of approving industrial development certificate applications not only in the grey areas, where they are urgently needed, but in areas such as Plymouth where there are special problems of geography, transport and regional development. I understand perfectly well the arguments that can be advanced, and which have been advanced so forcefully in this short debate, for giving exceptional treatment to industrial development certificate applications and for other types of assistance, from not just the Board of Trade but from the Ministry of Transport and other Departments for cities such as Plymouth.
For this reason we greatly welcome the planning reports of the various economic councils. As my hon. Friend said, the report on the South-West is aptly entitled "Draft Strategy for the South-West". I have been able only to glance through the report, but it seems to be a first-class survey of the area, its problems and needs, and the recommendations for dealing with the problems are such as one would expect from Professor Tress and his colleagues. But neither Professor Tress nor the hon. Members would expect me today to comment on the many recommendations. These recommendations will be examined, not only by the Board of Trade but by every Government Department concerned so that we may either accept some of the proposals, or come forward with proposals of our own arising from the recommendations, and we will certainly deal with the matter with the sense of urgency that the report properly demands.
I turn to Plymouth's immediate problems. As both hon. Members have said, the city is the major centre in the South-West region. It has a wide range of employment. I know that both hon. Members say that the range is too narrow but, compared with other cities with similar problems, Plymouth has a fairly wide range of employment. It has a comparatively high proportion of employment in the service trades and professions, and the dockyard is of major importance in the manufacturing centre.
Employment has grown. Since 1960 it has gone up by 10 per cent. although, admittedly, growth has now been checked. This is a result of the decline of employment in the dockyard and the rundown in industry generally.
As my hon. Friend rightly said that unemployment in the area has increased in the last 12 months. I do not want to minimise the question of unemployment which exists at the moment but, to answer the question which was put by the hon. Lady, new projects which have recently been announced for the city include those of Barden Corporation, manufacturers of ball-bearings, Gleasons, manufacturers of gear cutting blades, and Wrigley and Company Ltd. These projects and other smaller schemes—I used the same phrase—are expected to provide about 700 extra jobs when they are fully manned. When a firm starts with its project it has to get machines in and will not get its full employment roll until after a period of time. This depends on the industry and its prospects and how it is planning ahead. I hope that the fully-manned situation will not take too long to come about.
Plymouth has considerable attractions as an industrial location. I am very glad that my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady mentioned the security of jobs which the dockyard offers at present. My hon. Friend mentioned the refitting of "Ark Royal" and the conversion of H.M.S. "Tiger". When these have been completed H.M.S. "Eagle" will be adapted to operate Phantom aircraft. Devonport will also have to refit the modem and more complex ships of the Fleet such as commando ships, assault ships, destroyers, frigates and submarines. It is impossible to give specific assurances about the long-term future of any Naval establishment, but I am informed that the refitting of these modern and complex ships will provide a full load of work for Devonport Dockyard for some years to come.
The hon. Lady raised the question of employment of women as office workers. Two Government Departments are transferring to Plymouth and a new Land Registry provincial office will be set up, which will eventually employ 650 people, mostly women. The Location of Offices Bureau in its attempt to get offices out of London has found a great deal of interest shown in Plymouth and is doing all it can—the numbers are not much at the moment but when once a process like this starts it soon builds up—to persuade firms to move from London to Plymouth.
We recognise that Plymouth has great attractions, but it also has some considerable problems because of its location. I cannot go into the transport problems and say anything more about the new spine road but there are possibilities of Plymouth becoming one of the overspill areas from London. I believe that a pilot scheme has been agreed in principle with Greater London Council. We shall see how this develops. I would not compare the problems of Plymouth with those which we have to place in other parts of the country. The problems are there and the opportunities are there. I feel sure that with proper examination of the report we have from the Regional Planning Council we shall have the means of helping not only Plymouth but the whole South-West to become a really attractive tourist area and also for its appropriate degree of industrial expansion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock, till Monday, 23rd October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 25th July.